Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 2, 2016, 7:21 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

lottosync 1.7 hit again!!

Topic closed. 14 replies. Last post 12 years ago by paul762.

Page 1 of 1
PrintE-mailLink
Avatar
langley b.c.
Canada
Member #3313
January 10, 2004
155 Posts
Offline
Posted: February 2, 2005, 10:31 pm - IP Logged

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!!!!!

    MillionsWanted's avatar - 24Qa6LT

    Norway
    Member #9517
    December 10, 2004
    1271 Posts
    Online
    Posted: February 2, 2005, 10:59 pm - IP Logged

    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.

      Avatar
      langley b.c.
      Canada
      Member #3313
      January 10, 2004
      155 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: February 2, 2005, 11:12 pm - IP Logged

      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!!!!

        MillionsWanted's avatar - 24Qa6LT

        Norway
        Member #9517
        December 10, 2004
        1271 Posts
        Online
        Posted: February 3, 2005, 1:20 am - IP Logged
        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.
          Avatar

          Canada
          Member #2859
          November 23, 2003
          463 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: February 3, 2005, 1:21 am - IP Logged

          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 !

            LANTERN's avatar - kilroy 28_173_reasonably_small.jpg
            Tx
            United States
            Member #4570
            May 4, 2004
            5180 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: February 3, 2005, 2:48 am - IP Logged

            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 accuracy, even a very fast computer might benefit from extra insertion of delays in the right part or parts of the prediction process or maybe it would be better to have a uniform slow-down of the total process and not just small stops or delays in particular places of the process loop.

            Who knows? Maybe Guru knows, also Ion Saliu might know.

            It would be interesting to know either way.

            BibleOnline  ParishesOnline  ChristianRadioOnline   MassOnline   Mass

            "Ten measures of beauty descended to the world, nine were taken by Jerusalem."

              LANTERN's avatar - kilroy 28_173_reasonably_small.jpg
              Tx
              United States
              Member #4570
              May 4, 2004
              5180 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: February 3, 2005, 3:10 am - IP Logged

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

              BibleOnline  ParishesOnline  ChristianRadioOnline   MassOnline   Mass

              "Ten measures of beauty descended to the world, nine were taken by Jerusalem."

                MillionsWanted's avatar - 24Qa6LT

                Norway
                Member #9517
                December 10, 2004
                1271 Posts
                Online
                Posted: February 3, 2005, 7:12 am - IP Logged
                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.
                  Avatar
                  langley b.c.
                  Canada
                  Member #3313
                  January 10, 2004
                  155 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: February 3, 2005, 8:59 am - IP Logged

                  i'am using an amd

                    paul762's avatar - lion

                    United Kingdom
                    Member #3002
                    December 11, 2003
                    477 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: February 3, 2005, 1:33 pm - IP Logged

                    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?

                       

                      Avatar
                      langley b.c.
                      Canada
                      Member #3313
                      January 10, 2004
                      155 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: February 3, 2005, 7:13 pm - IP Logged

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

                        paul762's avatar - lion

                        United Kingdom
                        Member #3002
                        December 11, 2003
                        477 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: February 7, 2005, 1:20 pm - IP Logged

                        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.


                          Belgium
                          Member #2220
                          September 2, 2003
                          553 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: February 7, 2005, 1:37 pm - IP Logged

                          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 !

                            paul762's avatar - lion

                            United Kingdom
                            Member #3002
                            December 11, 2003
                            477 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: February 8, 2005, 11:26 am - IP Logged

                            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

                              paul762's avatar - lion

                              United Kingdom
                              Member #3002
                              December 11, 2003
                              477 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: February 8, 2005, 2:12 pm - IP Logged
                              Quote: Originally posted by paul762 on February 8, 2005


                              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




                              perhaps I was too quick to dismiss things here, as my test results between 12000 and 30000 show 20000 to be an ideal sample also. 

                              guru, could this just be coincidence though?