Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited January 19, 2017, 11:54 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

The prediction software you've been waiting for?

Topic closed. 47 replies. Last post 9 years ago by time*treat.

Page 1 of 4
42
PrintE-mailLink
MillionsWanted's avatar - 24Qa6LT

Norway
Member #9517
December 10, 2004
1279 Posts
Offline
Posted: October 19, 2007, 2:38 pm - IP Logged

Software to predict the unpredictable to be developed

Will perhaps be never released to the public, but you can only hope.

    LANTERN's avatar - kilroy 28_173_reasonably_small.jpg
    Tx
    United States
    Member #4570
    May 4, 2004
    5180 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: October 19, 2007, 3:45 pm - IP Logged

    Software to predict the unpredictable to be developed

    Will perhaps be never released to the public, but you can only hope.

    Like something lioke that might give a very much reduced field of numbers and also a possible more accurate prediction, it would be best for jackpot kind of games, as less complicated predicting software can be used for the pick 3 and 4 games.

    That software might be used for things that it was not made for such as for gambling.

    The complexity of a software depends on the prediction logic(s) used.

    But How many people really know how to predict? Not very many! 

    that program appears to be very flexable and could be used for any kind of predictions.

    Yes, such things can be develped with the help of those who understand how prediction is done.

    I myself do know 1 or 2 things about prediction for lottery and also in general. 

      Fibonacci's avatar - Lottery-050.jpg
      New York, NY
      United States
      Member #39471
      May 16, 2006
      2698 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: October 19, 2007, 3:57 pm - IP Logged

      The unpredictable is just that-un[predicatable. to suggest that the unpredictable can be predicted is mumbo jumbo.

       (of course I am not reacting top the merits or demerits of the professor's work--which is wholly mischaracterized by that kind of ignorant reporting on UA news. The variables mentioned are not in anyway unpredictable. Anything that involves humans in groups cannot by definition be unpredictable. A sole deranged madman might be unpredictable. A group of fighters, terrorists, what-have-you cannot be unpredictable. Only people with the IQ of George Bush believe that foolishness.)

      In any case thanks for bringing this otherwise interesting article to our attention.

      $$$

        MillionsWanted's avatar - 24Qa6LT

        Norway
        Member #9517
        December 10, 2004
        1279 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: October 19, 2007, 5:02 pm - IP Logged

        Most of the factors used are probably predictable on their own, the problem is to predict an outcome when several factors are included.

        For those who won't be able to afford something like this I know the developers of Lotto Sorcerer are working on a version 7.1 which is able to use a cluster of PC together like a supercomputer to work on the predictions. Looks like they got heavy ambitions. The new version will probably use a different algorithm than earlier versions and "work" on the problem for hours, if not days. For a few days a webpage about the new version of LS on Satori Publishing's website was available, but disappeared again.

        If the program could come up with profitable predictions it would be great. I've backtested version 5.5  for 20 draws and the performance was way better than quick picks. Unfortunately it was still not able to make a profit from its predictions. 

          Guru101's avatar - rw6jhh
          Indiana
          United States
          Member #48725
          January 7, 2007
          1958 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: October 19, 2007, 5:13 pm - IP Logged

          No thanks. My program's better.Big Grin

          Gonna win.Big Smile

            RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
            mid-Ohio
            United States
            Member #9
            March 24, 2001
            19900 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: October 19, 2007, 5:39 pm - IP Logged

            Over the last few years I've reviewed and try different lottery software and most are only good for storing data and a few can analyze data but none can analyzes data in such a way as to be able to predict numbers any better than quick picks.

            The problem is no one has identified enough information about winning numbers to make predicting lottery numbers profitable, if they have they haven't shared it or included it in any commercially available software. When I checked the predictions results of the top predictors on the prediction board there are a few predictors that beat the odds but none good enough to make money doing it.

             * you don't need to buy more tickets, just buy a winning ticket * 
               
                         Evil Looking       

              sfilippo's avatar - skull
              Oklahoma
              United States
              Member #33770
              February 24, 2006
              3146 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: October 19, 2007, 6:13 pm - IP Logged

              Minority Report, Paycheck... Lurking

              Smiley Steve

                Avatar

                Honduras
                Member #20982
                August 29, 2005
                4715 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: October 19, 2007, 10:49 pm - IP Logged

                What they are planning to accomplish is impossible..And 2.2 Million is very little...let them continue to dream...

                Unless you were asking the computer to try and surmise what cause the course of action (basically find out what was going on in the head of the perpetrators), what were they thinking before the action happened...The computer should have in mind that evil is always present, always thinking, always devising a trick...If the computer can guess what were they thinking....I mean it will have to be one huge computer...

                It could be possible but the odds of the computer getting it right, are almost impossible...The supercomputer will have to think so much per second...And i don't think a simple university professor or a Nobel price of physics/mathematics/probabilities could make it...It will take a consortium of Nobel price winners to push the cow computer to other limits...On the bright side, every action is done by a thinking mind...What was the thinking mind thinking before it exert the action....And the supercomputer wouldn't get it right everytime...Is like trying to invent a second "Earth Simulator" but better, more powerful...One another bright side, i sometimes see on Law and Order and CSI that the criminal investigators can predicts certain things before they happened given enough clues...But again it will have to be a MASSIVE SUPERCOMPUTER" AND RIGHT NOW  and i don't think there is enough computer power....

                 

                 

                "The Truth is Out There"            from movie "The X-Files"

                  Avatar
                  Kentucky
                  United States
                  Member #32652
                  February 14, 2006
                  7343 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: October 19, 2007, 11:42 pm - IP Logged

                  Over the last few years I've reviewed and try different lottery software and most are only good for storing data and a few can analyze data but none can analyzes data in such a way as to be able to predict numbers any better than quick picks.

                  The problem is no one has identified enough information about winning numbers to make predicting lottery numbers profitable, if they have they haven't shared it or included it in any commercially available software. When I checked the predictions results of the top predictors on the prediction board there are a few predictors that beat the odds but none good enough to make money doing it.

                  "a few can analyze data but none can analyzes data in such a way as to be able to predict numbers any better than quick picks."

                  I think it's because we fool ourselves into believing that we have enough data to predict numbers. Are there any 5/39 games with 575,757 draws where we could analyze trends?

                  Even with Pick-3 games, is one full trial (1000 draws) enough to accurately evaluate random draws or do we need more?

                  "The problem is no one has identified enough information about winning numbers to make predicting lottery numbers profitable, if they have they haven't shared it or included it in any commercially available software."

                  The reason the games are not profitable for the players is the house advantage. They get 50% on Pick-3 games and draw twice a day seven days a week so time will overcome any system that requires daily play. Most 5/39 games start at $100,000 but there are 575,757 combinations and the secondary prize payouts versus the true odds are worse.

                  It's the information being analyzed that is flawed because the past draws were random. Probabilities are helpful but that doesn't mean because only 3.8% of all combinations have 3 or more consecutive numbers that will happen once every 25 draws no more than it's due when it didn't happen in the past 25 draws. Even if we knew it was going to hit in the next draw, we would need a bank roll of $22050 to cover all the combinations and cross our fingers 5 or 6 other people didn't do the same thing we did. 

                  "When I checked the predictions results of the top predictors on the prediction board there are a few predictors that beat the odds but none good enough to make money doing it."

                  Wheels are great tools but I've never seen a system that consistently predicts even 4 out of 5 using 16 numbers so by playing an abbreviated 2if5, 3if5, or 4if5 16 number wheel, you probably won't break even. It's possible to hit 5 out 5 playing a 3if5 wheel, but it's more likely getting the same results I did; playing a 16 number 3if5 wheel for $14, hitting all 5 numbers, getting back 10 bucks, and end up losing $4.

                  Catching the smaller prizes keep you in the game, but to make money you need to hit jackpot.

                    Avatar
                    Kentucky
                    United States
                    Member #32652
                    February 14, 2006
                    7343 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: October 19, 2007, 11:56 pm - IP Logged

                    What they are planning to accomplish is impossible..And 2.2 Million is very little...let them continue to dream...

                    Unless you were asking the computer to try and surmise what cause the course of action (basically find out what was going on in the head of the perpetrators), what were they thinking before the action happened...The computer should have in mind that evil is always present, always thinking, always devising a trick...If the computer can guess what were they thinking....I mean it will have to be one huge computer...

                    It could be possible but the odds of the computer getting it right, are almost impossible...The supercomputer will have to think so much per second...And i don't think a simple university professor or a Nobel price of physics/mathematics/probabilities could make it...It will take a consortium of Nobel price winners to push the cow computer to other limits...On the bright side, every action is done by a thinking mind...What was the thinking mind thinking before it exert the action....And the supercomputer wouldn't get it right everytime...Is like trying to invent a second "Earth Simulator" but better, more powerful...One another bright side, i sometimes see on Law and Order and CSI that the criminal investigators can predicts certain things before they happened given enough clues...But again it will have to be a MASSIVE SUPERCOMPUTER" AND RIGHT NOW  and i don't think there is enough computer power....

                     

                     

                    "The Truth is Out There"            from movie "The X-Files"

                    "It could be possible but the odds of the computer getting it right, are almost impossible...The supercomputer will have to think so much per second..."

                    That's why I don't understand the trend of some states going to computer drawings. It might not even take a supercomputer to analyze a set of drawings and determine the methodology the lottery's computer is using and duplicate it.

                    Can you imagine what would happen in Tennessee if they had to pay out the max every day for a week?

                      LANTERN's avatar - kilroy 28_173_reasonably_small.jpg
                      Tx
                      United States
                      Member #4570
                      May 4, 2004
                      5180 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: October 20, 2007, 12:08 am - IP Logged

                      "a few can analyze data but none can analyzes data in such a way as to be able to predict numbers any better than quick picks."

                      I think it's because we fool ourselves into believing that we have enough data to predict numbers. Are there any 5/39 games with 575,757 draws where we could analyze trends?

                      Even with Pick-3 games, is one full trial (1000 draws) enough to accurately evaluate random draws or do we need more?

                      "The problem is no one has identified enough information about winning numbers to make predicting lottery numbers profitable, if they have they haven't shared it or included it in any commercially available software."

                      The reason the games are not profitable for the players is the house advantage. They get 50% on Pick-3 games and draw twice a day seven days a week so time will overcome any system that requires daily play. Most 5/39 games start at $100,000 but there are 575,757 combinations and the secondary prize payouts versus the true odds are worse.

                      It's the information being analyzed that is flawed because the past draws were random. Probabilities are helpful but that doesn't mean because only 3.8% of all combinations have 3 or more consecutive numbers that will happen once every 25 draws no more than it's due when it didn't happen in the past 25 draws. Even if we knew it was going to hit in the next draw, we would need a bank roll of $22050 to cover all the combinations and cross our fingers 5 or 6 other people didn't do the same thing we did. 

                      "When I checked the predictions results of the top predictors on the prediction board there are a few predictors that beat the odds but none good enough to make money doing it."

                      Wheels are great tools but I've never seen a system that consistently predicts even 4 out of 5 using 16 numbers so by playing an abbreviated 2if5, 3if5, or 4if5 16 number wheel, you probably won't break even. It's possible to hit 5 out 5 playing a 3if5 wheel, but it's more likely getting the same results I did; playing a 16 number 3if5 wheel for $14, hitting all 5 numbers, getting back 10 bucks, and end up losing $4.

                      Catching the smaller prizes keep you in the game, but to make money you need to hit jackpot.

                      Even with Pick-3 games, is one full trial (1000 draws) enough to accurately evaluate random draws or do we need more?

                      In the past I have predicted pick 3 straight winning numbers with from 1 to about 100 past draws, with only 1 to 10 past draws most of the time, the few times that I have done this.

                      I then predicted groups of numbers and not just 1 single pick, but at those times more often than not I did easily beat random chance.

                      "The problem is no one has identified enough information about winning numbers to make predicting lottery numbers profitable, if they have they haven't shared it or included it in any commercially available software."

                      The real problem is that most people don't know what data to use and in which way to use it and also how to get the data that is needed. 

                       The reason the games are not profitable for the players is the house advantage. They get 50% on Pick-3 games and draw twice a day seven days a week so time will overcome any system that requires daily play. Most 5/39 games start at $100,000 but there are 575,757 combinations and the secondary prize payouts versus the true odds are worse.

                      This is indeed a problem, but with proper software and a good prediction technique, it can be done, at least for pick 3 and 4 games. 

                      Random does not mean that you can't win, only that you need to learn how to use random for your own advantage.

                      Patterns are always there and always will be. 

                      Few people understand prediction, that is good or there would be no lottery games.

                      I am glad to know that most people don't know how to predict. 

                      People love to play games that they can't win.

                      Somebody must pay the state taxes and the prizes. 

                        LANTERN's avatar - kilroy 28_173_reasonably_small.jpg
                        Tx
                        United States
                        Member #4570
                        May 4, 2004
                        5180 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: October 20, 2007, 12:17 am - IP Logged

                        What they are planning to accomplish is impossible..And 2.2 Million is very little...let them continue to dream...

                        Unless you were asking the computer to try and surmise what cause the course of action (basically find out what was going on in the head of the perpetrators), what were they thinking before the action happened...The computer should have in mind that evil is always present, always thinking, always devising a trick...If the computer can guess what were they thinking....I mean it will have to be one huge computer...

                        It could be possible but the odds of the computer getting it right, are almost impossible...The supercomputer will have to think so much per second...And i don't think a simple university professor or a Nobel price of physics/mathematics/probabilities could make it...It will take a consortium of Nobel price winners to push the cow computer to other limits...On the bright side, every action is done by a thinking mind...What was the thinking mind thinking before it exert the action....And the supercomputer wouldn't get it right everytime...Is like trying to invent a second "Earth Simulator" but better, more powerful...One another bright side, i sometimes see on Law and Order and CSI that the criminal investigators can predicts certain things before they happened given enough clues...But again it will have to be a MASSIVE SUPERCOMPUTER" AND RIGHT NOW  and i don't think there is enough computer power....

                         

                         

                        "The Truth is Out There"            from movie "The X-Files"

                        Some people don't understand that it is not the computer that gets the winning numbers, but the prediction logic that does it.

                        A Commodore 64 can easily predict the pick 3 winning numbers, with the right software as prediction logic for the pick 3 is very simple.

                        A C-64 only has 64 Kb of Ram for the whole computer and it is a 8 bit computer maybe about 1 Mega Hertz of speed or even slower then that. 

                          Hans's avatar - Lottery-029.jpg
                          Monte Carlo
                          France
                          Member #55589
                          October 9, 2007
                          1181 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: October 20, 2007, 2:07 am - IP Logged

                          If any software can tell in advance 100% sure that in a group of 15 numbers in a 6/35-49,there would be only one number that will be drawn,that would already be good enough to help win a bit than you played.And for any pick5,even the jackpot will have much chance to be predicted if so.

                          The issue is that it is not 100% sure.

                            Avatar
                            Kentucky
                            United States
                            Member #32652
                            February 14, 2006
                            7343 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: October 21, 2007, 6:20 am - IP Logged

                            LANTERN:  "In the past I have predicted pick 3 straight winning numbers with from 1 to about 100 past draws, with only 1 to 10 past draws most of the time, the few times that I have done this."

                            I was comparing Pick-3 games (1000 combos) with 5/39 Pick-5 games (575,757 combos). 10 draws are 1% and 100 is 10% and that would be 5757 and 57,575 draws in a Pick-5. After 1000 draws we can check to see how close to probability the drawings were; how many singles, doubles. triples, odd/even, high/low, etc. 

                            LANTERN:  "Random does not mean that you can't win, only that you need to learn how to use random for your own advantage."

                            I Agree!

                              time*treat's avatar - radar

                              United States
                              Member #13130
                              March 30, 2005
                              2171 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: October 21, 2007, 5:53 pm - IP Logged

                              The original article is an example of a sensational headline followed by little else.

                              Groups of people respond to a given stimuli in a small finite number of ways, not millions of possible outcomes like lotto results. That is a totally different kind of "unpredictable".

                              This is why there are more computer programs that can beat a human at a complex game like "chess", than at a simple game like "go". The two require very different types of thinking. 

                              The professor has pulled off a nice coup, though, as he essentially gets 2 mil to write a program that makes pretty graphs out of work that has been done ten times over by various gov'ts, authors of psychology (and stock market) books, and Tom Clancy.

                              In neo-conned Amerika, bank robs you.
                              Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms should be the name of a convenience store, not a govnoment agency.