The prediction software you've been waiting for?

Reply #47

time*treat — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 17:37:14 GMT

42 choose 6 = 5,245,786 combinations.

Better depends on your risk capital, patience, and willingness to slog through lots of data reading material, plus many other things. There are a lot more things that have to go right in the markets. I can say that the lottery is (overall) less of a hassle, even if the numerical odds are more difficult, because some obstacles cannot be calculated as a static number.

Reply #46

RJOh — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 18:05:55 GMT

Also, it takes more than a dollar to be a player in the stock market.

Reply #45

pumpi76 — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 14:11:44 GMT

There are 20,000 stocks....There are i think 3 million combinations for a Pick6/42 game, 500K for a Pick5/39....

And the stock market is better because you don't need to match 5 stocks (5 or 6 lottery numbers) but there are hundreds of stocks winners...I say more than 50 stocks at least...

I got the stock information from the news...

Reply #44

RJOh — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 13:22:54 GMT

You only get the same results if you have the same ideas. A lot of us, here, are using some flavor of BASIC, but I don't believe we will all end up with the same winners losers.

That's the problem, there is only one right result when predicting winning lottery numbers, getting anything else no matter how you figured it and even if it's close is not a winner.

Reply #43

BobP — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 05:36:53 GMT

This is a nice little easy to understand article on Sigma Six software that explains the difference between the process and statistics. BobP

http://www.accelper.com/pdfs/StatisticalSoftwareandSixSigmaProjects%2001-04-06.pdf

Reply #42

time*treat — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 19:29:15 GMT

You are thinking of the Black-box trading programs the big boys use. That is true. While you may not be able to get the specific code the big boys are using, there are packages that are available to us regular folks.

I have trialed some that cost as much as $3,000 and some that cost ~$100. Some are flat fee, others are subscription based. Actually, they work much like special purpose programming languages. They let you backtest theories for the stocks. E.g. how a portfolio would have p... [ More ]

Reply #41

pumpi76 — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 16:16:25 GMT

correction: I call it gap theory but is actually DRAW SKIP number sequence...

Reply #40

pumpi76 — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 16:09:14 GMT

I fogot to mention to add: HOt cold pattern/frequency along with Gap theory/sequence....

The Truth is Out There from movie The X-Files

Reply #39

RJOh — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 14:19:08 GMT

Although most people have heard of it,I doubt if plenty of this type of software exists. Only the larger investment companies could afford it and it's proprietary. Same would be true with any prediction software if it existed, sharing it would defeat its purpose. Sharing a win with a hundred other players who was using the same software would get old fast.

Reply #38

time*treat — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 07:18:51 GMT

I will just tackle one point here.

Plenty of software like this does exist for the stock market, at many price points. Listen c a r e f u l l y to the business news on any given day and you will hear the phrase program trading . If fact, program trading runs between 30% to sometimes over 60% of total trading volume (on average) for the major exchanges. This info is released week by week.

As far as loss/win ratio in the market, success depends on where you cut any losses and how far you

Reply #37

Hans — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 06:12:54 GMT

When one banker number is known,it can help reduce numbers,and that helps a lot if the fnal numbers are reduced to 16,and still have left 4-5 numbers,on which basis we can make less than 30 lines for a 5hit.

Reply #36

pumpi76 — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 06:04:23 GMT

TnTea's OEOEOO types along with A Very good System for the lottery blog on my blog page https://www.lotterypost.com/blog.asp?i=22496

and i think we will do superb...And with the aid of a supercomputer....Oh Lord!!...

The Truth is Out There from movie The X-Files

Reply #35

pumpi76 — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 05:35:38 GMT

I am quoting the article

The software can handle data loads that would overwhelm human analysts, while dispassionately exploring actions and behaviors based solely on the data, sidestepping human cultural biases that might prematurely rule out unorthodox or seemingly bizarre courses of action.

If they would only have a software like that for the Stock Market or the lottery but more the Stock Market...Not saying they shouldn't continue what they are doing...But i believe a computer could... [ More ]

Reply #34

pumpi76 — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 05:03:00 GMT

The very few programs that have been made based on some of my posts are only borderline good or at best half good, because the programmers wanted to do their own thing or things in their own way and What do they know about prediction? Not very much really, not enough anyway.

I am not a programmer but I think he is right...

Reply #33

RJOh — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 02:22:22 GMT

Software that claim to reduce the odds of winning a jackpot is already available to the general public, the writer was talking about software that would guarantee a profit every drawing even when the jackpot rolls. Such software would have to strike a balance between the number of lines played and the expected returns. For the PowerBall game this would require a match4 for every hundred lines purchased or a match5 for every 200K lines purchased. Even with such guarantees, the average lottery... [ More ]

Reply #32

jarasan — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 18:31:29 GMT

I predict that the University of Arizona will spend all 2.2 million dollars on the predicting the unpredictable software before anyone notices the money is gone, and then ask for more funding because their prediction (premise) they could develop prediction software was too difficult (wrong) and they need more funding to figure out if it may be cheaper just to guess, whilst puffing some buds.

HAL was right. Dam humans.

Reply #31

Hans — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 18:14:32 GMT

A good predictor or a system doesnt need to tell exactly what will happen for all.It just needs to tell one 100% correct matter.For example,one banker number,even a right last digit.And if they can do it right very often,that would be quite good enough.

Reply #30

RJOh — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 18:05:04 GMT

Who are these good predictors? Over the years I've seen several threads that called for predictors to post instructions that a programmer would need to write a prediction program but no one ever does. All they ever do is post a page full of nonsense and BS that even they don't under stand. There will never be a good prediction program until good predictors share their secrets.

Reply #29

LANTERN — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 17:05:32 GMT

The prediction software that I have been waiting for, nobody wants to build it.

Programmers want to do their own thing and their thing is not winning as they don't know how to.

If they would do as people who do know asks them to, then maybe we would have the software that we have been waiting for.

The very few programs that have been made based on some of my posts are only borderline good or at best half good, because the programmers wanted to do their own thing or things in their own w... [ More ]

Reply #28

Omniscient — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:44:20 GMT

What, in anyones opinion, is the best predition software out there to pick the pick 3 and 4's ? or even 5 and 6 #'s ? I've tried Lotto Buster, Lotto Pro 2007 and Lotto Cheatah to name a few, but nothing to date has really worked too well except for wheeling my own numbers based on the past few weeks draws . I have only won 1 straight hit ever playing pick 3's and an occasional boxed hit here and there, but nothing worth noting. Been looking at alot of posts regarding vtracts, but not hitting wit... [ More ]

Reply #27

LANTERN — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 07:34:52 GMT

Yes, a person must know about prediction before he can program a computer to make them, that is why many programs that predict don't do it right, as their programmer does not know how, as I said, a supercomputer can't help with-out the right prediction logic.

Programmers, there are many, good predictors, not too many of them.

Reply #26

BobP — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 06:55:38 GMT

All a computer can do is mine data. If you don't know how to predict the winning lottery numbers there is no way you can program a computer to predict winning lottery numbers. It is possible to extrapolate data into the future and to follow possible paths like one of those select your own adventure books where at the end of each page is three turn to page # choices each of which continues the story a different way. In effect the path choices become a lottery of sorts the deeper you go. 3x3x3x... [ More ]

Reply #25

pumpi76 — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 02:29:32 GMT

My Bad is a mistake, is suppose to be OEOEEOE types (or odd,even,odd,even,even,odd,even)...I confused it with OOHHOH...OOHHOH is nothing.....However OEOEEOE is a way of looking at the draws....

Is a way of looking at the draws...It was originated from a post titled: Pick5/39 Schooling by TnTea:

https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/142913

You have to read all 18 pages of it to understand it...Not only can they make it with OEOEEOE types, but they can make it with 2-1-2 types...You have

Reply #24

GASMETERGUY — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 00:57:58 GMT

I understand why people would state that past draws have no influence on future draws. One would have to throw logic and sane reasoning out the window to think otherwise.

However, what other choice do we, the lottory insane, have? What else might we use as a basis for picking our numbers ?

I firmly believe (with no proof ) that past draws, while not influencing future draws, does give a picture of what has happened. And what has happened will happen again. The key is bridgin... [ More ]

Reply #23

Omniscient — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 17:26:11 GMT

What do you mean by OOHHOH types? What is OOHHOH

Reply #22

pumpi76 — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 20:01:04 GMT

This is something crazy but the same destructive force wild fires can have in California the same geniusness supercomputer will have to be able to beat Pick6/42 with TNTea's OHOOHO type..I say this because wild fire can do some stuff i don't believe they can yet they do it, like crumble a house and burn a car...But what i am trying to get is the physics of the wild wire how they can spread...I think of them as ants, the power ants can have...These are things we pay very little attention to yet t... [ More ]

Reply #21

Omniscient — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 15:54:35 GMT

Computing power is not the issue in prediction. I believe the technology is avalable for heavy number crunching. It's the software that's responsible for determining the outcome. You have to ask yourself ... Does past draw outcomes determine future results? ... Do past patterns and trends dictate better future results more often than not?

I used to have two(2) charts (1 for pick3 and one for pick 4) that I created with all past draws to determine a trend or pattern for picking the next day... [ More ]

Reply #20

four4me — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 05:04:25 GMT

Massachusetts only has one pick 4 drawing and no pick 3 draws their game is set up like that because there state wants it like that.

the rest of the states pay outs are fairly standardized. You can lobby all you want but the payouts are structured they way they are because it brakes down mathematically with the odds. Why would they make the odds in the favor of the players.

Reply #19

pumpi76 — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 04:52:58 GMT

And i'll want to know the secret to beating PIck3 and Pick4 more than the secret to win Powerball or Pick6/49....(Unless it was 200 million, because then i could use it to try and lobby governments around the world into putting an easier pick3 and Pick4)....I know you are going to say that's impossible but if you can change a game from a regular pick4 into Massachussett's Number game (at least) or you can implement it, or you can create a lotto like W. Virginia Cash25, then i'll be happy....... [ More ]

Reply #18

time*treat — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 04:50:37 GMT

I still don't understand why they will spend more money trying to predict everything with the earth simulator (the Earth basically) and less on something that will predict absolutely everything, when predicting absolutely everything is more complex than the job the Earth Simulator has...

They are not predicting everything , the software goal is to predict group behavior (a finite set of actions) under various civil unrest circumstances (varied, but still finite). The full article explains... [ More ]

Reply #17

pumpi76 — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 04:32:09 GMT

it will be more in their best interest if they invent a computer that can track voice patterns and all of that...

I still don't understand why they will spend more money trying to predict everything with the earth simulator (the Earth basically) and less on something that will predict absolutely everything, when predicting absolutely everything is more complex than the job the Earth Simulator has...

In using a computer to predict the lottery, i believe two things....YOu could use a compute... [ More ]

Reply #16

Todd — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 23:51:02 GMT

Well, the 2.5K of RAM in my VIC-20 could even predict the Pick 3, let alone my C64

Reply #15

scrooge — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 23:30:52 GMT

Commodore 64

Wow, did you bring up some memories.

I bought one of those in 1983, thinking this would help me beat the daily game. I acquired every lottery program available for it. Then created about 2 or 3 dozen programs of my own.

I sold that computer in 2003. It was still working, but I felt sooner or later one of the components would fail.

Still haven't found a system, that will make me happy.

Reply #14

time*treat — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 21:53:32 GMT

The original article is an example of a sensational headline followed by little else.

Groups of people respond to a given stimuli in a small finite number of ways, not millions of possible outcomes like lotto results. That is a totally different kind of unpredictable .

This is why there are more computer programs that can beat a human at a complex game like chess , than at a simple game like go . The two require very different types of thinking.

The professor has pulled off a nic... [ More ]

Reply #13

Stack47 — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 10:20:40 GMT

LANTERN: In the past I have predicted pick 3 straight winning numbers with from 1 to about 100 past draws, with only 1 to 10 past draws most of the time, the few times that I have done this.

I was comparing Pick-3 games (1000 combos) with 5/39 Pick-5 games (575,757 combos). 10 draws are 1% and 100 is 10% and that would be 5757 and 57,575 draws in a Pick-5. After 1000 draws we can check to see how close to probability the drawings were; how many singles, doubles. triples, odd/even, high/low... [ More ]

Reply #12

Hans — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 06:07:38 GMT

If any software can tell in advance 100% sure that in a group of 15 numbers in a 6/35-49,there would be only one number that will be drawn,that would already be good enough to help win a bit than you played.And for any pick5,even the jackpot will have much chance to be predicted if so.

The issue is that it is not 100% sure.

Reply #11

LANTERN — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 04:17:33 GMT

Some people don't understand that it is not the computer that gets the winning numbers, but the prediction logic that does it.

A Commodore 64 can easily predict the pick 3 winning numbers, with the right software as prediction logic for the pick 3 is very simple.

A C-64 only has 64 Kb of Ram for the whole computer and it is a 8 bit computer maybe about 1 Mega Hertz of speed or even slower then that.

Reply #10

LANTERN — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 04:08:22 GMT

Even with Pick-3 games, is one full trial (1000 draws) enough to accurately evaluate random draws or do we need more?

In the past I have predicted pick 3 straight winning numbers with from 1 to about 100 past draws, with only 1 to 10 past draws most of the time, the few times that I have done this.

I then predicted groups of numbers and not just 1 single pick, but at those times more often than not I did easily beat random chance.

The problem is no one has identified enough information... [ More ]

Reply #9

Stack47 — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 03:56:04 GMT

It could be possible but the odds of the computer getting it right, are almost impossible...The supercomputer will have to think so much per second...

That's why I don't understand the trend of some states going to computer drawings. It might not even take a supercomputer to analyze a set of drawings and determine the methodology the lottery's computer is using and duplicate it.

Can you imagine what would happen in Tennessee if they had to pay out the max every day for a week... [ More ]

Reply #8

Stack47 — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 03:42:41 GMT

a few can analyze data but none can analyzes data in such a way as to be able to predict numbers any better than quick picks.

I think it's because we fool ourselves into believing that we have enough data to predict numbers. Are there any 5/39 games with 575,757 draws where we could analyze trends?

Even with Pick-3 games, is one full trial (1000 draws) enough to accurately evaluate random draws or do we need more?

The problem is no one has identified enough information about winning n... [ More ]

Reply #7

pumpi76 — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 02:49:14 GMT

What they are planning to accomplish is impossible..And 2.2 Million is very little...let them continue to dream...

Unless you were asking the computer to try and surmise what cause the course of action (basically find out what was going on in the head of the perpetrators), what were they thinking before the action happened...The computer should have in mind that evil is always present, always thinking, always devising a trick...If the computer can guess what were they thinking....I mean it wi... [ More ]

Reply #6

sfilippo — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 22:13:49 GMT

Minority Report, Paycheck...

Reply #5

RJOh — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 21:39:11 GMT

Over the last few years I've reviewed and try different lottery software and most are only good for storing data and a few can analyze data but none can analyzes data in such a way as to be able to predict numbers any better than quick picks.

The problem is no one has identified enough information about winning numbers to make predicting lottery numbers profitable, if they have they haven't shared it or included it in any commercially available software. When I checked the predictions results... [ More ]

Reply #4

Guru101 — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 21:13:32 GMT

No thanks. My program's better.

Reply #3

MillionsWanted — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 21:02:49 GMT

Most of the factors used are probably predictable on their own, the problem is to predict an outcome when several factors are included.

For those who won't be able to afford something like this I know the developers of Lotto Sorcerer are working on a version 7.1 which is able to use a cluster of PC together like a supercomputer to work on the predictions. Looks like they got heavy ambitions. The new version will probably use a different algorithm than earlier versions and work on the proble... [ More ]

Reply #2

Fibonacci — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 19:57:46 GMT

The unpredictable is just that-un[predicatable. to suggest that the unpredictable can be predicted is mumbo jumbo.

(of course I am not reacting top the merits or demerits of the professor's work--which is wholly mischaracterized by that kind of ignorant reporting on UA news. The variables mentioned are not in anyway unpredictable. Anything that involves humans in groups cannot by definition be unpredictable. A sole deranged madman might be unpredictable. A group of fighters, terrorists, what... [ More ]

Reply #1

LANTERN — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 19:45:29 GMT

Like something lioke that might give a very much reduced field of numbers and also a possible more accurate prediction, it would be best for jackpot kind of games, as less complicated predicting software can be used for the pick 3 and 4 games.

That software might be used for things that it was not made for such as for gambling.

The complexity of a software depends on the prediction logic(s) used.

But How many people really know how to predict? Not very many!

that program appears to

The prediction software you've been waiting for?

MillionsWanted — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 18:38:16 GMT

Software to predict the unpredictable to be developed

Will perhaps be never released to the public, but you can only hope.