lottery

Reply #10

rundown99 — Wed, 20 Aug 2003 11:39:31 GMT

I would play some quick picks, but if I pick numbers, I would tend to play due numbers that haven't come up for the longest time.

Reply #9

RJOh — Tue, 12 Aug 2003 13:42:50 GMT

To DrBLW,How did you calculate your odds reduction after applying your general observations. I have a similar system that look at gaps, sums, ranges, general positions of numbers and etc and best improvement I've calculated in a 649 game is 1:14M to ~1:11M. I wrote a little loop in GWBasic which print all the possible combinations and only count the ones within preset parameters which takes a while.RJOh

Reply #8

DrBLW — Mon, 11 Aug 2003 19:35:04 GMT

There is little theoretical correlation between a number set drawn today and 100 draws ago. However, there is some empirical correlation between a set drawn today and the last 5-10 draws. The most obvious is the fact that almost never do 3 or more numbers repeat from draw to draw. There are about 25 other observations of this general nature which can be utilized in this manner and I continue to work on such a system. Even so, you might reduce the odds from 1 in 15,000,000 to 1 in 5,000,000 and

Reply #7

Pick-4_Master — Mon, 11 Aug 2003 12:41:16 GMT

Playing all the numbers like Thomas Covenant mentionedis a sure way to win but impossible to do.An alternative and less expensive way of playing the numbers does exist in many forms some work better than others and some not at all.The strategies I'm working onrequire anywhere from 5 to 20 combinations.

Reply #6

p4straight — Mon, 11 Aug 2003 09:08:52 GMT

There is one way to reduce the odds based on historical trends. But, the odds are still high and way against the player. We can discuss, if you want.

Reply #5

Pick-4_Master — Sun, 10 Aug 2003 23:00:45 GMT

And there never will be because no one could use it due to the cost of playing the numbers.

Reply #4

p4straight — Sun, 10 Aug 2003 22:46:43 GMT

There is no such system at this time.

Reply #3

Pick-4_Master — Sun, 10 Aug 2003 20:11:40 GMT

That's the DUMBEST and MOST expensive system to use when there other strategies that work for much less.

Reply #2

RJOh — Sat, 09 Aug 2003 20:25:15 GMT

As far as I know, that has only been tried once and that was some years back in the Virgina lottery when the cash value was greater than the odds of winning. Since then a lot of states have create guide lines which makes it impossible for any group to control enough machines long enough to play all the possible combinations. There was a group in Canada that claimed 1:3 odds of winning the jackpot a 649 games with a 300,000 combinations, but I think they might have been running a scam to get lo... [ More ]

Reply #1

Thomas Covenant — Sat, 09 Aug 2003 19:51:20 GMT

Yes, but the only system that works is buying all the possible number combinations. Just don't lose the ticket.

lottery

MrSteel01 — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 08:53:30 GMT