I hope that Win D does not get upset about this tread or post!
I am kind of back, I am too addicted to posting to not post sometimes.
You might say that there is nothing logical about random, so, How can there be logical prediction systems?
The problem is that you think that there is random, after all there is the word and has a definition:
Let us take a look at some definitions:
- lacking any definite plan or order or purpose; governed by or depending on chance; "a random choice"; "bombs fell at random"; "random movements"
- taken haphazardly; "a random choice"
- It says "Governed by chance" And What is chance? It is not anything either same as random.
- Nothing is governed by "Chance, but by "Natural" universal laws, Physical-Chemical laws.
- Or as they say "For every action there is a reaction", it does not go like: For every chance there is a reaction, chance does not cause a reaction, an action is produced by a previous action, not by something called "Chance".
- Nothing can scape physical-chemical universal laws, everything and anything most follow them, no matter what they might tell you, but random and chance are not universal laws.
- --------------------------Next:
- In ordinary language, the word random is used to express apparent lack of purpose or cause. This suggests that no matter what the cause of something, its nature is not only unknown but the consequences of its operation are also unknown.
- That next definition appears to be just a little more In-Tune with reality.
- In ordinary language, the word random is used to express apparent lack of purpose or cause. This suggests that no matter what the cause of something, its nature is not only unknown but the consequences of its operation are also unknown.
- That is more like it:
- There is a cuse or causes, but they are unknown.
- There appears to be a lack of purpose, but only appears to be, there is no lack, the purpose is just unknown to us.
- The nature and the purpose are not Random, they are just unknown to us.
- -----------------------------------------
- So if thru study the unknown becomes a little less unknown are more known then there can be somewhat logical and ilogical prediction lottery techniques.
- ----------
- Due to the many "Unknown" and changing actions that cause reactions or a reaction, the flow of actions (Reactions) appear to be random.
There-fore that wouild make "Static" prediction methods useless for the most part or a great deal of the time.
Even Unknown (What appears to be Chaos) has sort of "Common Sense" "Rules".
They can be called "Statistical" rules.
----------
For example take a pick 3 game and its 3 positions:
123
Common sense statistic would tell us that on any one digit position the same digit number can't keep on showing up on straight sequence draw after draw after draw and so on "Amen" forever.
While it is not impossible for such to happen, it is "Practicaly" impossible for it to happen.
As you can see I can't spell the words right.
So if that is true then what happened to the unpredictability of so called made up "Random"
It appears as if it is not as unpredictable after all.
Statistics and common sense tell us that there are what I would call "Degrees of predictability"
More or less sort of flexible limits, there are more or less flexible averages, upper and lower limits.
What we are looking for are the "Most" rules, that is what happens the most often, over-all and also at a pariticular strecht of times and at repetitions.
Also at Average Lower, Medium and Upper Limits. The "Most" or "Most Common" averages, both at particular Times and overall for a given long stretch of time.
----------------
Logical then might mean: Logical according to whatever stats are used.
A good enough (To some degree) prediction system might or would have both: Static and dynamic elements.
It might have static rules by which the dynamic elements of the system are figured out and used.
-----------
Using something like:
+1, -3, 0
Would be much more a static system than a dynamic one, but it is a little dynamic.
Just the same, it might be no good at least no very often.
I would not use that as a for-ever prediction technique, nor anything such as that, at very particular times something such as that could be one part of a prediction technique, that might work (Maybe) for a very short period of time.
Past stats might tell you when something like that might have some prediction value at some time(s).
----------------
It is not that no system works, only that we might not have a system that does work, there stil might be a system that works, somebody might have it or nobody might yet.
---------