The HAT Method 5/25 Evening

Reply #23

CalifDude — Fri, 26 May 2006 17:00:09 GMT

The drawing statistics should work. You can sort that by number of times hit. But, again, to backtest...I don't know how to do it with the statistics.

Reply #22

cps10 — Fri, 26 May 2006 16:53:29 GMT

I guess you cats didn't understand me, it looks as if JD did. That is what I am talking about...there are various ways to inspect on that tool, however, they are pre-set, aren't they? I mean you couldn't just abitrarily choose July 17, 2005 to Dec. 1, 2005, can you? I think if that were the case, then you could do the backtesting that JD wants to do.

Reply #21

CalifDude — Fri, 26 May 2006 15:21:46 GMT

I use that tool, but to backtest it is very hard to do.

Let's say you want to look at the digit that was drawn the least in the last 20 draws. Ok, I can do the last 30 draws, delete 10 draws and run Inspector 3 again and I have the answer. Now I want to do it again going BACK 1 draw. I need to delete the most current draw and add in the 30th draw and run Inspector 3 again. It can be done, but to backtest very far it would take way too much time.

Reply #20

Todd — Fri, 26 May 2006 15:14:44 GMT

That has a good ring to it.

cps10, you can load Inspector with various date ranges directly from a game's past drawing history by going to the results pages, click on the game's popup menu, and select the Inspector option.

Reply #19

takeitez — Fri, 26 May 2006 15:07:47 GMT

Here is a good name for the tool, Todd

Inspector 3 - Pick 3 Number Classification System

ez

Reply #18

Todd — Fri, 26 May 2006 14:54:51 GMT

It's already available.

Reply #17

cps10 — Fri, 26 May 2006 14:52:03 GMT

Yeah, it's too bad that we can't have a tool on here that will inspect numbers in a given date range....maybe Todd could do something like that

Reply #16

CalifDude — Fri, 26 May 2006 14:35:27 GMT

Quote: Originally posted by cps10 on May 26, 2006 CD

This would require a progression to be sure in order to capitalize on a win after you have lost. Now, have you backtested any states for this? It would be interesting to see how often this works.

The method that I use to determine the least drawn number would not allow me to backtest.

If you win 85% of the time you win $900 in 100 draws. At 80% you lose money. So somewhere between those 2 is the breakeven point.

Reply #15

cps10 — Fri, 26 May 2006 14:34:02 GMT

CD

This would require a progression to be sure in order to capitalize on a win after you have lost. Now, have you backtested any states for this? It would be interesting to see how often this works.

Reply #14

CalifDude — Fri, 26 May 2006 14:15:56 GMT

I thought so!!

Everyone that can afford to bet over $6,000 a day on the Pick 3, raise your hand ...... hmmmmmm no hands raised

Reply #13

hillspecs24 — Fri, 26 May 2006 13:50:21 GMT

lol now thats funny

Reply #12

CalifDude — Fri, 26 May 2006 13:21:54 GMT

Where did I say to bet all states??????? Heavens, nobody could do that. Online I am restricted to $750 per week to bet. Please re-read my posts and you will find that I am talking about ONE state.

I can't believe that you even thought I was talking about betting ALL states.

Reply #11

CalifDude — Fri, 26 May 2006 13:19:28 GMT

Final Results

Arizona (9) 672 +$42.75

.

California (6) 628 -$182.25

.

Connecticut (1) 468 +$42.75

.

Delaware (3) 080 +$42.75

.

Florida (9) 244 +$42.75

.

Georgia (0) 330 -$182.25

.

Idaho (9) 860 +$42.75

.

Illinois/Iowa (4) 708 +$42.75

.

Indiana (5) 949 +$42.75

.

Kansas (6) 126 -$182.25

.

Kentucky (7) 487 -$182.25

.

Louisiana (4) 061 +$42.75

.

Maine (Tri-State) (2) 567 +$42.75

.

Maryland (6) 914 +$42.75

.

Michigan (5) 979 +$42.75

.

Minnesota (8) 644 +$42.75

.

Mis... [ More ]

Reply #10

SirMetro — Fri, 26 May 2006 12:40:28 GMT

At an net cost of $6,378.75 for 35 states (assuming base cost per state is $182.25), 8 of those 35 states did not hit.

The break-even point is 6 states not hitting. Anymore then 6 states and there is a negative value (7 states results in a $78.75 loss).

Interesting, but very costly gamble.

Sir Metro

Reply #9

CalifDude — Fri, 26 May 2006 05:10:42 GMT

Results so far (AZ will report later):

.

Arizona (9)

.

California (6) 628 -$182.25

.

Connecticut (1) 468 +$42.75

.

Delaware (3) 080 +$42.75

.

Florida (9) 244 +$42.75

.

Georgia (0) 330 -$182.25

.

Idaho (9) 860 +$42.75

.

Illinois/Iowa (4) 708 +$42.75

.

Indiana (5) 949 +$42.75

.

Kansas (6) 126 -$182.25

.

Kentucky (7) 487 -$182.25

.

Louisiana (4) 061 +$42.75

.

Maine (Tri-State) (2) 567 +$42.75

.

Maryland (6) 914 +$42.75

.

Michigan (5) 979 +$42.75

.

Minnesota (8) 644

Reply #8

CalifDude — Fri, 26 May 2006 03:45:41 GMT

I have a list of 220 numbers that will produce a hit 100% of the time.

Reply #7

CalifDude — Fri, 26 May 2006 03:43:26 GMT

Results so far:

.

Arizona (9)

.

California (6) 628 -$182.25

.

Connecticut (1) 468 +$42.75

.

Delaware (3) 080 +$42.75

.

Florida (9) 244 +$42.75

.

Georgia (0) 330 -$182.25

.

Idaho (9) 860 +$42.75

.

Illinois/Iowa (4) 708 +$42.75

.

Indiana (5)

.

Kansas (6) 126 -$182.25

.

Kentucky (7) 487 -$182.25

.

Louisiana (4) 061 +$42.75

.

Maine (Tri-State) (2) 567 +$42.75

.

Maryland (6) 914 +$42.75

.

Michigan (5) 979 +$42.75

.

Minnesota (8) 644 +$42.75

.

Missouri (7) 440 +$42.7... [ More ]

Reply #6

Fibonacci — Fri, 26 May 2006 02:31:34 GMT

Calif what if there was way to reduce the betting list from 600 or 700 to less than 250? I have been doping that for some time now....

1One way to do this (not what i use btw):

1. Get the last 30 pairs...in the last 10- 20 drawings

2. Run down these pairs...IOW ..a pair 45 will produce 10 numbers

450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459...

You only have 340 numbers now...less if you have many duplicate pairs...

Guaranteed that in more than 80 % of the times your numb... [ More ]

Reply #5

CalifDude — Fri, 26 May 2006 02:01:20 GMT

Results so far:

.

Arizona (9)

.

California (6) 628 -$182.25

.

Connecticut (1)

.

Delaware (3) 080 +$42.75

.

Florida (9) 244 +$42.75

.

Georgia (0) 330 -$182.25

.

Idaho (9)

.

Illinois/Iowa (4)

.

Indiana (5)

.

Kansas (6)

.

Kentucky (7)

.

Louisiana (4)

.

Maine (Tri-State) (2) 567 +$42.75

.

Maryland (6) 914 +$42.75

.

Michigan (5) 979 +$42.75

.

Minnesota (8) 644 +$42.75

.

Missouri (7) 440 +$42.75

.

Nebraska (6)

.

New Jersey (6) 670 -$182.25

.

New Mexico (3)

.

N... [ More ]

Reply #4

CalifDude — Thu, 25 May 2006 18:25:10 GMT

I think that is true. With this method you should win 90% of the time since you are playing 90% of the digits.

With an 85% win rate you would, after playing 100 draws, make a profit of $900. But at 80% you lose money.

Reply #3

itscarie — Thu, 25 May 2006 18:14:48 GMT

Cool, takes money to make money... lets see what happens

Reply #2

CalifDude — Thu, 25 May 2006 18:13:02 GMT

Least drawn in last 50 draws for that drawing, in this case Evening.

Reply #1

itscarie — Thu, 25 May 2006 18:09:33 GMT

CD, what are you basing the number left out on

The HAT Method 5/25 Evening

CalifDude — Thu, 25 May 2006 17:48:26 GMT

I started a thread with the subject: How About This?

Here is the link:

https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/135114.htm

So, just for fun, I would like to see how well it does. I will call this the HAT method (for How About This). The object is to play 9 digits and cover all the straights for those 9. It turns out that is 729 combinations. You play them all straight or all box, it makes no difference. If the digit that is left out does NOT hit, you win $225. Betting 25 cents, the wager