Stone Mountain*Georgia United States
Member #828
November 2, 2002
10,491 Posts
Offline
I had a doubles grid a long time ago and it was one of the worst predictors I ever put together. Something about doubles... to much time delay or something.
It did take my attention away from the 120 singles and caused me to miss some of those many times. That I do remember. Maybe its a one or the other deal.... at least for me anyway.
Not saying we couldn't or shouldn't try it... but it sure sucked when I tried to use it. Of course .... I didn't have a computer or multi states to play with back then either. LOL
One thing I really do remember..... you can't mix them on a 220 chart of doubles and singles and get any reliable math averages on hit rates. Thats for sure. Terrible to handle.
It worked for Sums fine ofcourse... as long as I stayed Vertical... any thing that mixed the doubles and singles horizontal ..... at least on a Sums chart didnt work.
The only real failure .....is the failure to try.
Luck is a very rare thing....... Odds not so much.
The Carolinas - Charlotte United States
Member #21,626
September 12, 2005
4,142 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by WIN D on Aug 22, 2006
I had a doubles grid a long time ago and it was one of the worst predictors I ever put together. Something about doubles... to much time delay or something.
It did take my attention away from the 120 singles and caused me to miss some of those many times. That I do remember. Maybe its a one or the other deal.... at least for me anyway.
Not saying we couldn't or shouldn't try it... but it sure sucked when I tried to use it. Of course .... I didn't have a computer or multi states to play with back then either. LOL
One thing I really do remember..... you can't mix them on a 220 chart of doubles and singles and get any reliable math averages on hit rates. Thats for sure. Terrible to handle.
It worked for Sums fine ofcourse... as long as I stayed Vertical... any thing that mixed the doubles and singles horizontal ..... at least on a Sums chart didnt work.
WIN D,
Here is something I have been thinking about. I know that you don't like mixing doubles and singles with any situation. What I was thinking about was consecutives. They occur almost every other draw, in a boxed form. Now, what I have are 70 singles that are consecutives and 20 doubles. That leaves 90. In order to have the grid "balanced", though, I needed to add 10 more numbers. I thought about triples, but those are so random and ridiculous. So, I decided to use consecutive all odds and consecutive all evens:
024 246 468 068 028
135 357 579 179 139
This would give 100 numbers. If you look below, you will see yellow colored boxes. Those would represent where the doubles could be placed. This would cause an even distribution of doubles: 2 on every row, and 2 on every column.
V1
V2
V3
V4
V5
V6
V7
V8
V9
V10
H1
H2
H3
H4
H5
H6
H7
H8
H9
H10
Then we would sprinkle in the singles and the odd/even consecs into the grid and follow it much like the original with 120. Do you think this would be ridiculous, or do you think maybe I should reduce it to 70 singles AND the 10 consec odds/evens? I want to make sure the grid is balanced.
Please advise and how you think it could be "populated".
Also, how did you go about populating the original Grid?
Thanks!
The North Carolina Education Lottery - so much a joke that here are their mascots: