- Home
- Premium Memberships
- Lottery Results
- Forums
- Predictions
- Lottery Post Videos
- News
- Search Drawings
- Search Lottery Post
- Lottery Systems
- Lottery Charts
- Lottery Wheels
- Worldwide Jackpots
- Quick Picks
- On This Day in History
- Blogs
- Online Games
- Premium Features
- Contact Us
- Whitelist Lottery Post
- Rules
- Lottery Book Store
- Lottery Post Gift Shop
The time is now 8:02 pm
You last visited
April 16, 2024, 6:22 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)
Straight Into The Heart Of "Absolute Versatility": Part IIPrev TopicNext Topic
-
I wanted very much for someone to notice the presence of one thing particularly. Maybe some of you did -- but none of you said so. It is present in both examples.
Let's use the first example I had presented originally:
B B A
B C BB A C
X X X
X X X
X X X
A B B
C B C
X X X
X X X
X X X
X X X
A A A
C C A
Let's begin then:
B B A, B C B and what indeed would be required to complete or balance it? That's right. B A C. Look at those top three rows very closely. Can you see that it was the particular case that the B A C appeared directly after the two above it? See how it has been completed and balanced?
Now, start on the same B B A on top again but this time drop your eyes down from it to what is the first occurrence of an A in the extreme left column. (It is the first occurrence because I can tell you there isn't one beneath any of the three X's above that A -- they are B's and C's.) Because it is the first appearance of an A in that particular spot and it came after what's at the top "IT IS A SIGNAL EVENT!":
It has just become a legitimate progression forming by virtue of that A's first appearance along that direction. It's now a legitimately valid progression in progress.
It is an objectively verifiable progression because it was the "first instance" of a particular number (letter) appearing. It was then followed at some point after by the needed (necessary) number (letter) which must also be accompanied by the needed (necessary) numbers (letters) beside it in the other two columns so that the progression is completed and balanced.
At the point of the A appearing (with its two buddies in the other columns), we were then able to see (if we indeed were understanding this progression correctly as it was forming as AV was forming it) what was necessary ("required") to complete and balance that part of the progression and that was C B C. And indeed it did show up next: immediately after the A B B. (Sometimes they don't appear immediately after -- but defer to other numbers appearing first.) It is now a complete progression and a part of a continuing progression. Do you understand what I mean?
Caveat:
Don't make the mistake (though it would be a natural one) of assuming that all you have to do is to find a legitimate progression in progress (in which of course the "principle of first appearance" is present and taking place in a dominant column) and every single occasion of a number's first appearing will complete and balance it as it goes on and on and on. It doesn't work that way. I mean, c'mon. Would the workings of "Absolute Versatility" really be that obvious? Would the workings of God be that obvious?
The reason it can't continue along like that permanently in one column is because of any number of things that are also occurring in the other two columns.
"Dominating" is going on within the columns but there is also much "deferring" going on as well.
Many times the progressions don't show up at all. That means A V had other plans. When a progression forming doesn't get anywhere it means that another one did. Every time that a progression doesn't form or lasts only for a short run it means that another progression or set of progressions began forming.
So don't expect that using that "first appearance" principle works 100% of the time because it just doesn't. If it did then numbers would be all too easily predictable -- and obviously they are not. Oh boy, are they not easily predictable! -- unless you are following A V correctly as the drawings advance along.
***
Keeping up with me? I hope that you are not misunderstanding anything I have said so far.
Now, quickly dash back upstairs (all the way to the roof let's call it) to that same B B A and then waste no time in darting right back downstairs again (but this time all the way to the basement let's call it). The sheer beauty of this! It just so happens that we have just arrived at another A occuring after the other A that we had just gotten so excited about. As was the case with the first A there was not an instance of an A appearing in any of the X's just above it. Again, as exactly was the case with the A on the middle floor of this architecturally (and progressionally) sound structure, a legitimate progression is in progress. Now, look what was released in the very next drawing: the necessary and to be expected C C A numbers (letters) appearing! They have arrived to elegantly balance and complete the progression (just this particular progression, mind you. They are also involved in any number of other progressions at that very same moment!)
***
Did you get all of that? Did you get any of that?
Too much for you? Not enough?
Well, let's just back up a little bit to look up at the facade of that imposing edifice of numbers (letters) again:
B B A
B C BB A C
X X X
X X X
X X X
A B B
C B C
X X X
X X X
X X X
X X X
A A A
C C A
Now do you get all of it?
First this little beauty:
B B A
B C B
B A C
See how it has been completed and therefore made perfect?
(Make sure you look at them vertically to see it.)
Then this:
B B A
A B B
C B C
See how it has been balanced?
And finally this little gem:
B B A
A A A
C C A
The same unsurpassed brand of "perfection" (and I think "beauty") displayed in each.
How do you like it?
And all of that working from only one column (the left) and all that "sublime beauty" occurring in a mere span of only fourteen drawings. What you can't even know though is that there is so much more absolute versatility being demonstrated within that mere span of only fourteen drawings but I am not even able to show you any of it because it's beyond me too (for the time being anyway). Those fourteen drawings are rife with the actions of AV going in both directions.
Oh, and by the way: that particular progression (or set(s) of progressions) didn't stop there (where we did) but continued along happily forming new progressions that were then transformed into even newer creations. They are always refreshing and transforming themselves. I like to think of them as liquescent progressions in that their nature seems that of a liquid.
The presence of two will always reveal what should be anticipated (because the third completes and balances it):
A A (need A)
A B (need C)
A C (need B)
B A (need C)
B B (need B)
B C (need A)
C A (need B)
C B (need A)
C C (need C)
See?
This provides one with a way to know exactly what to expect next (even if it doesn't show up -- and if it doesn't show up where you expected it, it means that you didn't follow the A V's logic -- you followed your own. It is always following its own logic -- not yours).
"Accomodation through deferring" is always taking place in the numbers and is a reason why something that you thought would show up didn't.
There is a lot of "deferring" going on.
I actually believe with all of my heart that because of "principle of first appearance" we have a very real opportunity of anticipating (predicting) numbers before they actually occur -- though to depend on using that principle only will result in quick failure.
The hard part is getting a handle on what A V is up to -- and that involves understanding what is occurring in all three columns at any given moment.
***
My own failures with this have been very disappointing through the years. It's all that I can do anymore just to catch a single progression forming in a column in a bunch of randonly-drawn Pick3 type numbers -- I get overwhelmed and confused right away (I have a very bad case of "numbers on the brain" anyway). A V doesn't care though -- it's right there in those numbers doing a million "beautiful" things!
I have thought very hard about why I am so limited in my perceptions of it and I have come to the conclusion that it's because I cannot follow more than one column at any given time. My tendency has always been to work from one column. To anticipate A V's logic well enough one must be able to work from all columns at the same time. I mean if A V is indeed working in the midst of all the columns isn't it logical that the human being trying to perceive (and anticipate) its actions must also work from all the columns at any given moment? If one can do that then one can predict the Pick 3 and 4 type games correctly constantly. I think that this has been responsible for much of my limited success with correctly anticipating exactly what it's up to at any given moment.
I am understanding only a very miniscule bit of absolute versatility. That's why I made mention in a very early post about me not being the one who should have encountered it. I have no natural facility with it. Others do have it I'm sure. Brilliant chess-players, I think. Having a natural facility for seeing, understanding and following it is probably something hard-wired in the brain. Either you have it or you don't. I don't. I know I discovered it (and I don't know what the odds against that happening were -- Oh my God, I don't want to introduce anymore numbers into my poor brain if I don't have to!
) but I never could be anything more than just marginally successful trying to follow the logic of AV. "Ain't hard-wired for it in me old noggin' don't 'cha know!"But, my God! There have been many glorious all-too brief "glimpses" through the years in which I not only "saw" and understood what A V was doing along a span of numbers -- but because I did, I was able to precisely and correctly anticipate particular numbers and sets of numbers appearing before they actually did in particular orders. And yes -- indeed it does always involve all three of the columns!
But it has always been that way for me: "a window of opportunity" opening up for a few moments with an unobstructed view of the phenomenon for my mind and eyes to see and understand.
"And then it closes again."
It is because of those very glimpses that I haven't been able to drop my old battered clipboard and permanently walk away from it.
I'll always be working on it -- until either I get it or "it gets me".
***
Now, about the mysterious reference that I had made about "the left column dominating" regarding the two examples:
B B A
B C BB A C
C C C
B C B
B B A
A B B
C B C
X X X
X X X
X X X
X X X
A A A
C C A
See the gray B's in the middle and extreme right columns? Because they did occur before the green B's that are a part of the legitimate progression, neither of those two columns (that the gray Bs are in) can be said to be dominating for that portion of the progression. The left is dominating because the A's (red) appearance was a first appearance. That is what I meant by the mysterious reference to the "left column dominates" when I first presented the two examples.
Within a particular span of drawings in which there is a legitimate progression occurring at least one column would dominate (because of the "principle of first appearance" operating sucessfully) -- but sometimes two columns will dominate or even all three will dominate for that same progression for a time -- however, sooner or later (I think it would be always sooner) one or both of those other two that are dominating will stop doing so because they are quickly transforming into different progressions. I hope I said that the way I meant to.
But make no mistake -- those gray B's (as well as those "black letters" swarming them) are not useless nor any less important than any other simply because each is involved in any number of their own progressions.
Remember, literally every number that ever appears is many things doing many things.
Each and every number has its own "many duties to perform".
***
It was at this point that I completely came apart in my head.
(Just kidding.)I did run out of steam and hit a wall though.
This was too big an undertaking for me.
I couldn't say all I wanted to in one big post and I didn't really know how to organize and then present the material to you in the best way.
Frankly, there are just too many things in my head that I need to clarify but ultimately I don't think I'll ever be able to.
It has been next to impossible for me to explain these concepts as much as I have.
I don't think that I'll ever be able to explain some of the smaller (but by no means less important) points simply because there are just too many.
Actually, I think I did a pretty good job communicating my ideas up to this point. It's actually nothing less than "miraculous" to me that I have been able to come even this far.
These ideas really should be communicated in smaller doses anyway.
I think maybe it would be a better thing if I just occasionally post my ideas incrementally in the forum -- ideas that I think may be helpful to anyone interested in understanding more about A V -- in as much as I can understand it myself.
By the way, I believe this is literally how much I can understand and follow A V at this point:
00.06%
That leaves only 99.94% for me to figure out!
Thanks very much for allowing me to express a few of these concepts to you.
Please consider these things very carefully if you are interested in them.
I tried hard.
***
Regards everyone!
I'll come back as soon as I can.
Let me just say: There are many paths to a number.
-
-
Hello again Curious.
Wow! I was taken aback again.
I identified with your "cascading progressions" reference totally.
I was wanting to ask you (if it is not giving too much away):
Do you work with these "cascading progressions" from all columns and going in both directions? or is it different?
Very interested Curious.
Regards.
-
Hello again Curious.
Wow! I was taken aback again.
I identified with your "cascading progressions" reference totally.
I was wanting to ask you (if it is not giving too much away):
Do you work with these "cascading progressions" from all columns and going in both directions? or is it different?
Very interested Curious.
Regards.
-
Numbers are where you find them.
-
-
-
-
-
-
I need a break!
I'll see if I can correct those problems somehow!
Be back when I can.
-
-
Hi kayee.
Very good question.
When I encountered the phenomenon and started working with it, I quite naturally worked with all 10 numbers (0-9).
I saw the presence of AV (tired of typing it out every time) and could follow it in glimpses.
Working with 10 numbers as you might expect was more difficult but it had been under those very circumstances of working with 10 that I "saw" the presence of the phenomenon.
This went on for a time and then for a reason I cannot recall (this was many years ago) I decided to divide all ten numbers into 3 groups. I don't remember why I did this (dont' know what my logic was), but when I did I realized I had literally reduced everything down to 3 numbers (no more and no less).
But even so, having done this I still have had just enough persistent difficulties with it to drive me nuts! I could not get any better a handle on what Absolute Versatility (I later came to call it that) was up to than with the 10 numbers.
This is what I know:
I have a certainty that if I solve for 3, I will then be able to solve for 10, but I won't be able to solve for 10 until I do solve for 3. Make sense? Hard to explain that, but I know it is true.
I can tell you -- everything that AV does for three numbers it is also doing for ten but I must "master" three first.
From the very beginning I had wanted anyone who has had any interest in following this not to focus on what those red blue green letters represented but on seeing (or at least sensing) the presence of the AV -- and I guess I still have my work cut out for me with that. I also didn't want anyone reducing what I know is a "phenomenon" to a "system". If it was a system I would call it that unabashedly.
It's really nothing more that a "red herring".
If you would like to reduce this to a "real world cold hard cash basis" this is what the very worst of mastering "3 numbers" would be:
You would know absolutely what that evening's (or even a number of consecutive evenings') drawing(s) will be "straight". It's only that instead of a single dollar, you would accomodate a group of numbers.
Mastering 10 of course would literally allow you to nail it on the head.
I could have avoided or evaded your question kayee (and kept saying that I wanted everyone to continue not focusing on what the letters represent), but I think that the time was such that whenever the next person asked me about why I am not using numbers (as you just have) I would answer it.
I am very glad you asked it.
Regards.
-
Hi kayee.
Very good question.
When I encountered the phenomenon and started working with it, I quite naturally worked with all 10 numbers (0-9).
I saw the presence of AV (tired of typing it out every time) and could follow it in glimpses.
Working with 10 numbers as you might expect was more difficult but it had been under those very circumstances of working with 10 that I "saw" the presence of the phenomenon.
This went on for a time and then for a reason I cannot recall (this was many years ago) I decided to divide all ten numbers into 3 groups. I don't remember why I did this (dont' know what my logic was), but when I did I realized I had literally reduced everything down to 3 numbers (no more and no less).
But even so, having done this I still have had just enough persistent difficulties with it to drive me nuts! I could not get any better a handle on what Absolute Versatility (I later came to call it that) was up to than with the 10 numbers.
This is what I know:
I have a certainty that if I solve for 3, I will then be able to solve for 10, but I won't be able to solve for 10 until I do solve for 3. Make sense? Hard to explain that, but I know it is true.
I can tell you -- everything that AV does for three numbers it is also doing for ten but I must "master" three first.
From the very beginning I had wanted anyone who has had any interest in following this not to focus on what those red blue green letters represented but on seeing (or at least sensing) the presence of the AV -- and I guess I still have my work cut out for me with that. I also didn't want anyone reducing what I know is a "phenomenon" to a "system". If it was a system I would call it that unabashedly.
It's really nothing more that a "red herring".
If you would like to reduce this to a "real world cold hard cash basis" this is what the very worst of mastering "3 numbers" would be:
You would know absolutely what that evening's (or even a number of consecutive evenings') drawing(s) will be "straight". It's only that instead of a single dollar, you would accomodate a group of numbers.
Mastering 10 of course would literally allow you to nail it on the head.
I could have avoided or evaded your question kayee (and kept saying that I wanted everyone to continue not focusing on what the letters represent), but I think that the time was such that whenever the next person asked me about why I am not using numbers (as you just have) I would answer it.
I am very glad you asked it.
Regards.
Numbers are where you find them.
-
) but I never could be anything more than just marginally successful trying to follow the logic of AV. "Ain't hard-wired for it in me old noggin' don't 'cha know!"
