Very finely put Pinback. I know it's frustrating when a solution or an attempt of one is not readily found. I know it can be difficult at times....I've been there and done that....I can't wait till the person has the time to iron out the wrinkles.
This friend only has a limited time to configure my request. He has done a quite fantastic job, despite all the distractions. Thursday is the day which more progress will be implemented, just for the sake of timeliness.
To answer Pinback's question....I've asked a friend of mine to run a program of 10,000,000 simulated results in a given lottery with a random number generator at work.
The program is still in the debugging-mode. I hope that soon enough my buddy will come through and tell me that the program is really looking back at 10,000,000 situations...
The reason for the statement above is that according to him I got 12 three number sets, instead of maybe a hundred or more....There seems to be more de-bugging than I imagined.
The command given to the program is the following.....
Generate 10,000,000 numbers, randomly....
Look back and see what the results would be if considering the last ....two night's drawings....
What was initially found was a boxed number , matching the next day's results. Not Bad!!!
That is what I wanted the program to look for. The most likely set to arrive after so and so....
According to the builder of the program, Not quite confident...still in the works.....
Many filters can be applied.
Many variables left to fill in.....
The reason for doubt on my friend's behalf relies on th notion that the program , to which he made me aware of might not be really looking back at 10,000,000.
The reason I say this is because the person who wrote the program wasn't sure if it infact looked 10,000,000 back.
To reiterate.... more testing needed..