Welcome Guest
You last visited December 9, 2016, 2:19 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

# Conditional Feedback

Topic closed. 32 replies. Last post 9 years ago by JADELottery.

 Page 2 of 3

Would you have an advantage if you knew some basic biasing conditions the draw process would follow?

 Yes [ 25 ] [89.29%] No [ 3 ] [10.71%] Total Valid Votes [ 28 ] Discarded Votes [ 1 ]
The Quantum Master
West Concord, MN
United States
Member #21
December 7, 2001
3675 Posts
Offline
 Posted: October 31, 2007, 4:44 am - IP Logged

There's more to present, but I tired now... zzzzzz.

Presented 'AS IS' and for Entertainment Purposes Only.
Any gain or loss is your responsibility.

Order is a Subset of Chaos
Knowledge is Beyond Belief
Wisdom is Not Censored
Douglas Paul Smallish
Jehocifer

The Quantum Master
West Concord, MN
United States
Member #21
December 7, 2001
3675 Posts
Offline
 Posted: November 2, 2007, 7:50 am - IP Logged

Alright, here's some more. Looking back on the graphs I've posted, I had to ask myself, "Which graph is more reasonable or what is the reasonable expectation for data samples like that?" Well, there are no lotteries that select 4 non-repeating numbers from 0 to 9 in any order, so, I had to create one. Also, I ran 1500 samples of two different kind of draw sample sizes of 20 and 22 to see what I should get for a distribution. From there I could calculate for each distribution their averages and standard deviations for each samplings. Then I could get an average frequency hit rate and the average standard deviations of those hit rates. This will allow us to see what distribution we should expect for that kind of sample size.

I have two text files with the 1500 samples to show what the averages and standard deviations are based on. First, the averages are constant for their respective sample sizes. The sample size of 20 has an average frequency of 2.0000 and the sample size of 22 has an average frequency of 2.2000. Their respective average standard deviations are 1.3315 for 20 sample size and 1.3845 for 22 sample size. From this we can now calibrate some lines on the graph to see what numbers are for out from the normal.

Below are the pervious graphs with their respective averages and standard deviations in place.

Before

After

As you can see, there is something wrong in the after graph for indices 21 to 42 for many of the numbers. Number 6 by itself is more than 4 standard deviation units above the average. From my perspective, there is something seriously wrong. Also, numbers 8, 9, 3 and 2 are pushing their limits. Now, compare that to the before, everything is in place... it's what I'd reasonably expect for that type of drawing. Keep in mind also, the standard deviations for both sample sizes are very close, 1.3315 and 1.3845, just what I would reasonably expect.

Presented 'AS IS' and for Entertainment Purposes Only.
Any gain or loss is your responsibility.

Order is a Subset of Chaos
Knowledge is Beyond Belief
Wisdom is Not Censored
Douglas Paul Smallish
Jehocifer

ORLANDO, FLORIDA
United States
Member #4924
June 3, 2004
5912 Posts
Online
 Posted: November 2, 2007, 8:45 am - IP Logged

Alright, here's some more. Looking back on the graphs I've posted, I had to ask myself, "Which graph is more reasonable or what is the reasonable expectation for data samples like that?" Well, there are no lotteries that select 4 non-repeating numbers from 0 to 9 in any order, so, I had to create one. Also, I ran 1500 samples of two different kind of draw sample sizes of 20 and 22 to see what I should get for a distribution. From there I could calculate for each distribution their averages and standard deviations for each samplings. Then I could get an average frequency hit rate and the average standard deviations of those hit rates. This will allow us to see what distribution we should expect for that kind of sample size.

I have two text files with the 1500 samples to show what the averages and standard deviations are based on. First, the averages are constant for their respective sample sizes. The sample size of 20 has an average frequency of 2.0000 and the sample size of 22 has an average frequency of 2.2000. Their respective average standard deviations are 1.3315 for 20 sample size and 1.3845 for 22 sample size. From this we can now calibrate some lines on the graph to see what numbers are for out from the normal.

Below are the pervious graphs with their respective averages and standard deviations in place.

Before

After

As you can see, there is something wrong in the after graph for indices 21 to 42 for many of the numbers. Number 6 by itself is more than 4 standard deviation units above the average. From my perspective, there is something seriously wrong. Also, numbers 8, 9, 3 and 2 are pushing their limits. Now, compare that to the before, everything is in place... it's what I'd reasonably expect for that type of drawing. Keep in mind also, the standard deviations for both sample sizes are very close, 1.3315 and 1.3845, just what I would reasonably expect.

Doug,

What do you think about, bundleing up your analysis and sending it to that Tennessee reporter? Maybe she will rethink their analysis about fraud. I, for one, believe there was fraud. No idea at all who was involved, but one or more people committed it. Even if no one played any numbers, there was fraud, when they claimed they ran tests and got doubles.

The Quantum Master
West Concord, MN
United States
Member #21
December 7, 2001
3675 Posts
Offline
 Posted: November 2, 2007, 8:52 am - IP Logged

Doug,

What do you think about, bundleing up your analysis and sending it to that Tennessee reporter? Maybe she will rethink their analysis about fraud. I, for one, believe there was fraud. No idea at all who was involved, but one or more people committed it. Even if no one played any numbers, there was fraud, when they claimed they ran tests and got doubles.

I have a few more points to present....  but I think if that reporter looked here at this posted topic, it's about a bundled as it could get. I have a few Quantum aspects of the anomalies to show that can kind of round things out. Also, I have a few plausible theories as to an explanation of what may have and could be going on now with the Computer Generated Numbers.

Presented 'AS IS' and for Entertainment Purposes Only.
Any gain or loss is your responsibility.

Order is a Subset of Chaos
Knowledge is Beyond Belief
Wisdom is Not Censored
Douglas Paul Smallish
Jehocifer

Tennessee
United States
Member #7853
October 15, 2004
11338 Posts
Offline
 Posted: November 2, 2007, 11:26 am - IP Logged

i think there was fraud.someone very clever inside of the tennessee lottery got away with this.i think they were also very careful if they did win anything.

Atlanta, GA
United States
Member #1265
March 13, 2003
3333 Posts
Offline
 Posted: November 2, 2007, 12:11 pm - IP Logged

Might draw results have been tweaked by a programmer in the company performing drawings to bias drawings in favor of the lottery increasing revenues  .......  showing lawmakers Hargrove's decision was correct?  Of course not saying it happened that way but something to ponder.

More revenues ...... more pork to ensure re-election ..... politicians don't care how it was brought about.

Exactly what Hargrove is counting on.

Good luck to everyone!

The Quantum Master
West Concord, MN
United States
Member #21
December 7, 2001
3675 Posts
Offline
 Posted: November 2, 2007, 6:08 pm - IP Logged

Up till now in this topic, I have not used the F word to say for certain if some wrong doing has taken place or is still taking place, but as the evidence mounts, it sure is pointing in that direction.

Presented 'AS IS' and for Entertainment Purposes Only.
Any gain or loss is your responsibility.

Order is a Subset of Chaos
Knowledge is Beyond Belief
Wisdom is Not Censored
Douglas Paul Smallish
Jehocifer

NASHVILLE, TENN
United States
Member #33372
February 20, 2006
1044 Posts
Offline
 Posted: November 2, 2007, 9:27 pm - IP Logged

Up till now in this topic, I have not used the F word to say for certain if some wrong doing has taken place or is still taking place, but as the evidence mounts, it sure is pointing in that direction.

This is Tennessee.  We have more politicians in jail than any other state (If this last sentence is not true, it ought to be).

I always said (prior to the lottory coming in) that Tennessee will get a lottery just as soon as the policticians find a way to skim money.  With RNG they have found a way.  The Feds will conduct a sting operation (the state won't do it) and all will be out in the open.  The sting can't come soon enough for me.

I can only hope one lawmaker will introduce a bill forcing Tennessee back to ball drops.  Only with ball drops will the public have some sense of fair play.  Right now I feel that the lottery is being manipulated.  The number of winners in P3 and P4 are being determined before the draw.  The P5 jackpot is being allowed to grow and then some relative of some politically connected person will win.

Mark my words for the day will come when they will be proven true.  The evidence is pointing in that direction.

Tennessee
United States
Member #7853
October 15, 2004
11338 Posts
Offline
 Posted: November 2, 2007, 10:34 pm - IP Logged

i haven't bought one ticket since.i won't play until they go back to balls.if they don't then i guess i won't ever again.thats why playing online is really the only fair option i have left......

The Quantum Master
West Concord, MN
United States
Member #21
December 7, 2001
3675 Posts
Offline
 Posted: November 5, 2007, 9:04 am - IP Logged

Alright, I have spent the better part of the weekend studying the WAVE format. It is so I can present the next part of this topic. I won't get too technical, but we'll be in the realm of Quantum Mechanics, Radiation Physics and the application to random combinatorial selection. I've created some audio files to show the kind of inconsistencies there are in the drawings for 2007-07-28 to 2007-08-19 in Cash 4 and Cash 3.

First, let's deal with the Radiation. Most of us have heard of or listened to the sound of a Geiger counter. It makes that familiar 'tick' sound when it picks up a high energy particle or wave. Usually, this is associated with a radioactive material like Uranium. You put the Geiger counter near it and the number of 'ticks' you hear per second goes up. Well, as it turns out, most radioactive materials have a unique 'tick' rate that kind of helps define what material it is. The number of 'ticks' per second can be different for different materials, but overall the 'tick' rate associated with a particular material is fairly constant. Also, if a measure of time between 'ticks' is done, it can be averaged to a value that is fairly constant for similar quantities of the same material.

It is possible to simulate a Geiger counter sound reading given the basic parameter of the average time between ticks. Below are some simulated Geiger counter readings for a simulated radioactive source that have an average time between ticks from 1 millisecond to 1 second. Caution: Turn Your Volume Down to half way or 50%; it can be a bit hard on the ears at a high volume.

 Simulated Radioactive Sources Average 1 millisecond between ticks rate Average 10 millisecond between ticks rate Average 100 millisecond between ticks rate Average 1 second between ticks rate

The initial tick sound is provided by HotBits: Genuine random numbers, generated by radioactive decay at Fourmilab and is available as a source download. I used that one tick provided in the download to simulate the radioactive sounds. Took me a while to understand the WAVE format so I could manipulate it and create an audio file.

Anyway, review this for now, because the next post will be based on this simulated radioactive tick rate.

Presented 'AS IS' and for Entertainment Purposes Only.
Any gain or loss is your responsibility.

Order is a Subset of Chaos
Knowledge is Beyond Belief
Wisdom is Not Censored
Douglas Paul Smallish
Jehocifer

The Quantum Master
West Concord, MN
United States
Member #21
December 7, 2001
3675 Posts
Offline
 Posted: November 7, 2007, 12:10 pm - IP Logged

At this point you most of you should have heard the simulated radioactive source sounds. This will help in understanding the next part of these postings. In order to present the final evidence, we need to transform the simulated radioactive source sounds into something more meaningful and relevant to the lottery drawings of the Cash 4 and Cash 3. The simulated radioactive sources each have an average time between ticks at some fairly reasonable time spans, 1 millisecond, 10 millisecond, 100 millisecond and 1 second. For our purposes, we'll be using the 100 millisecond source to calibrate our readings for the next post.

The 100 millisecond simulated radioactive source is about 1/10th of a second. It's a long enough time span that allows you to listen for the ticks and get their general position in the random selection process relative to the rest of the ticks. The calibration values for our experiment will range from 100 millisecond to 1000 millisecond in 100 millisecond steps. The simulated radioactive calibration sources are not going to be exactly like the real or simulated radioactive sources because of how the experiment samples the data. In the simulated and in a real radioactive source the time span between ticks is more along the lines of an analog reading; for lottery samples the readings are along the lines of a digital reading. The reason for the digital reading has to do with the fact that we are not continuously sampling lottery numbers, they only happen at a given interval of time like once a day or twice a week and so on. This interval of measure is the index and is relative to the draw for that day's individual sample.

The calibration of our new radioactive sources will sound a bit like a typewriter or telegraph taps; the ticks occurring at regular 100 millisecond intervals but not every interval will have a tick sound. Each tick at the 100 millisecond interval will represent a number selection, a group of number selections, a sub-combination of selections or a complete combination selection. Below are the sounds for each simulated radioactive calibration source.

Each of the calibrated sources is designed to mimic an event in a series of lottery drawings. By example, the number 6 anomaly referenced earlier in this topic should have a reoccurrence in column D about once every 10 draws. This value of once every 10 draws can be obtained experimentally or it can be obtained mathematically. Any number in a given column has equal probability of occurring in that column, meaning any number 0 to 9 can occur without bias toward any number. The number 6 is 1 number out of 10 possible numbers that can occur in column D, meaning it has a 1 in 10 chance of occurring. As a value of probability of success this would be 1 / 10. To find the Average Rate of Reoccurrence we need to divide the probability of success into 1 successful hit possibility. This means we want to know about how many draws does it take on average to get a successful drawing of that number 6. In our example, it would be 1 / (1 / 10) or 10, the reciprocal of 1 / 10. This process works for any probability where we need to find the average rate of reoccurrence.

In trying to understand how this calibrated radioactive source works with our lottery drawings, we need to understand the real radioactive sources. Real radioactive sources are truly random events. The decay of that material is relatively fixed and can not be change by any normal every day process. We'll ignore relativistic effects for our experiment, because we're not drawing lottery numbers on a spaceship passing by the earth at near the speed of light, ok. The inner workings of the atomic and sub-atomic structure define how each type of material will decay and at what rate. In a way, the inner workings of the atom are like tiny lotteries continuously running every day of every second. When the right combination of events take place, there is something like a lottery drawing in the form of emitted radiation that we can detect. Just like the lottery, the atomic and sub-atomic structure are based on rules of the game. Each atom and particle is given a combinatorial set of values and when the time is right, there is a drawing.

Quantum Mechanics operates at that level, but it also operates at the lottery level, too. Even though we can not say for certain when an atom or sub-atomic particle will decay, we can reasonable generalize what we can expect over time for many observations of that sampled material or particle. With radioactive elements like Uranium, it has a half-life that describes approximately how much of the Uranium will be left after a period of time. The half-life is a constant and can not be changed by any normal means. It's established when the Uranium atoms were created in a Supernova explosion of a star. This is just like when a lottery is established. A lottery that employs any means of combinatorial or permutational selection has essentially created a simulated atomic structure and like an atom it has certain rules it must follow in order for the drawings to be a truly random selection. The constant most often found in lottery drawings is the rate of reoccurrence. The rate of reoccurrence is a constant for truly random selections and should not change for any reason. If you see or hear a change, that should be a warning that something is wrong. Someone or something is interfering with the normal Quantum Lottery Mechanics.

In the next post we'll be looking at two of the anomalies, the number 6 anomaly and the C-8-9 anomaly. To prepare for this, I ask you take special note and listen to the calibrated radioactive sources for 500 millisecond and 1000 millisecond. Listen to the whole 1 minute run of the sound, it will help with the next posted sounds.

Presented 'AS IS' and for Entertainment Purposes Only.
Any gain or loss is your responsibility.

Order is a Subset of Chaos
Knowledge is Beyond Belief
Wisdom is Not Censored
Douglas Paul Smallish
Jehocifer

The Quantum Master
West Concord, MN
United States
Member #21
December 7, 2001
3675 Posts
Offline
 Posted: November 8, 2007, 7:50 pm - IP Logged

Before we start, I need to add one more Calibrated Radiation Source, it's the 333 millisecond calibration and is relative to the lottery draw reoccurrence average rate of 3.33 draws. This will be used in another posted reply after this posted reply.

Up till now we heard the simulated and calibrated radiation sources. These sources are relative to their individual time or draw interval span and simulate the kind of random tick reoccurrences we should be hearing for a truly random event. The next sounds we'll hear are the actual drawings for the Cash 4 and Cash 3 drawings and their related number and numbers selections. First we'll present the 'number 6' and 'C-8-9' anomalies in this reply. Each of these anomalies have a related calibration radiation source that shows what we should reasonably expect for those types of column number selections. In the next reply, we'll listen to the 'A missing 6-7-8' anomaly for Cash 4 and the 'H-L-M' anomaly for Cash 3.

The 'number 6' anomaly is related to the reoccurrence of the number 6 in column D for Cash 4 as shown earlier by table and graph. Below are the sounds for the actual drawing and its related calibrated radiation source. The number 6 should on average reoccur about once every 10 draws, so its calibrated radiation source is going to be the 1000 millisecond sound. Each draw is equivalent to 0.1 second of the actual sound wave. First, if you haven't listened to the 1000 millisecond sound, listen to it and get a feel for what you should reasonably expect to hear. Next listen to the actual sound for Cash 4's number 6 reoccurrence in column D. Take special note by looking at the time; at 2 seconds there is a change in the sound or ticks heard. Keep this 2 second point in mind as it will be very important later in the postings.

 Calibration Sound Actual Draw Sound 1000 millisecond = Average 10 draws reoccurrence Cash 4 Number 6 Anomaly

The Cash 4 Number 6 Anomaly runs for 4.2 seconds; that's equivalent to 42 draws. At 2.1 seconds into the sound there is a change in the number of ticks heard. The sound should play back on a loop, if not, try to play back looped. Listen back and forth between the calibration and the actual, you should hear a distinct difference between them; most notably at the 2 second time frame for the actual drawing sound.

Next, the 'C-8-9' anomaly is related to the reoccurrence of the numbers 8 and 9 in column C for the Cash 4 drawings. With this sound also, at 2.1 seconds into the sound there is a change in the number of ticks heard. The average rate of reoccurrence for both the numbers 8 and 9 in column C is about once every 5 draws. This is derived mathematically by taking the reciprocal of its probability of success of 2 / 10; which is equal to 10 / 2 or 5. The calibration radiation source is the 500 millisecond sound. Again, listen to the sounds of the calibration and actual sounds to get a feel for the reasonable expectation and the actual. Also, take note of the actual drawing sound at the 2 second time frame. Below are the sound links.

 Calibration Sound Actual Draw Sound 500 millisecond = Average 5 draws reoccurrence Cash 4 C-8-9 Anomaly

The next posted reply will be the 'A missing 6-7-8' anomaly for Cash 4 and the 'H-L-M' anomaly for Cash 3.

Presented 'AS IS' and for Entertainment Purposes Only.
Any gain or loss is your responsibility.

Order is a Subset of Chaos
Knowledge is Beyond Belief
Wisdom is Not Censored
Douglas Paul Smallish
Jehocifer

The Quantum Master
West Concord, MN
United States
Member #21
December 7, 2001
3675 Posts
Offline
 Posted: November 8, 2007, 10:09 pm - IP Logged

The last two sounds to present are the 'A missing 6-7-8' anomaly for Cash 4 and the 'H-L-M' anomaly for Cash 3. The 'A missing 6-7-8' anomaly is the reoccurrence for the numbers 6, 7 and 8 in column A. The mathematically calculated rate of reoccurrence for that type of number selection is based on it's reciprocal probability of success of 3 / 10 and is 1 / (3 / 10) = 10 / 3 or approximately 3.33 draws. The 'H-L-M' anomaly is the reoccurrence of the particular type of possible permutation of the H - High, M - Middle and L - Low numbers in an individual draw. There can be a total of 6 possible outcomes for a permutation of H, M and L; they are H-M-L, H-L-M, M-H-L, M-L-H, L-H-M and L-M-H. The mathematically calculated rate of reoccurrence for that type of draw is the reciprocal of its probability of success. The probability of successfully drawing an H-L-M permutation only is 1/ 6, the reciprocal is then 1 / (1 / 6) or 6; the average rate of reoccurrence for the H-L-M permutation type is then once every 6 draws.

Next are the sounds for each anomaly and their corresponding calibration source. When listening to the actual draws, remember to watch for the 2 second time frame for each. As you listen, note the silence in the 'A missing 6-7-8' anomaly after the 2 second time frame.

 Calibration Sound Actual Draw Sound 333 millisecond = Average 3.33 draws reoccurrence Cash 4 A missing 6-7-8 Anomaly 600 millisecond = Average 6 draws reoccurrence Cash 3 H-L-M Anomaly

More replies to come.

Presented 'AS IS' and for Entertainment Purposes Only.
Any gain or loss is your responsibility.

Order is a Subset of Chaos
Knowledge is Beyond Belief
Wisdom is Not Censored
Douglas Paul Smallish
Jehocifer

The Quantum Master
West Concord, MN
United States
Member #21
December 7, 2001
3675 Posts
Offline
 Posted: November 9, 2007, 1:12 am - IP Logged

Once again, here are the wave files for each of the anomalies, their calculated average rate of reoccurrences and their reasonably expected wave files.

 Actual Draw Anomaly Sound Average Expected Reoccurrence Rate Calibrated Random Sound Cash 4 A missing 6-7-8 3.33 Draws 333 millisecond Cash 4 C-8-9 5 Draws 500 millisecond Cash 3 H-L-M 6 Draws 600 millisecond Cash 4 Number 6 10 Draws 1000 millisecond

At this point, someone might argue for each of the individual sounds that those could have been by chance been a unique reading and that because of that we shouldn't really think much of it. Therefore, everything presented so far is useless. Well, ok...maybe.

Maybe... but....  but if it weren't for these other facts. Remember I told you about keeping that 2 second time frame in mind. Well, if weren't for the fact that all 4 of these anomalies just happened to occur at the same time frame of 2 seconds, maybe. Maybe if weren't for the fact that 3 of the anomalies occurred in the same lottery game Cash 4 at the same 2 second time frame and also occurred at the same 2 second time frame as the anomaly in the separate lottery game Cash 3, then maybe I'd believe that... ...but I can't. The facts literally speak for themselves, tick-tick.

That fact is, from my perspective, someone or something seriously when wrong at about the 2007-08-08 drawing. In the examples presented, that's the 21 index and the 2.1 second time frame.

Now the fun part, theories of what could have happened on and after 2007-08-08 for the Tennessee Cash 4 and Cash 3 drawings...

...coming up next after these messages.

Presented 'AS IS' and for Entertainment Purposes Only.
Any gain or loss is your responsibility.

Order is a Subset of Chaos
Knowledge is Beyond Belief
Wisdom is Not Censored
Douglas Paul Smallish
Jehocifer

The Quantum Master
West Concord, MN
United States
Member #21
December 7, 2001
3675 Posts
Offline
 Posted: November 9, 2007, 3:55 am - IP Logged

Back on 2007-10-28 @ 15:39 ET, I posted a modified graph that was presented at the beginning of a Lottery Post News story; the News post was Tenn. players picked up on new odds before lottery revealed glitch. In it I had shown a possible trigger date of Aug 6; since then I have decided on the date of Aug 8. The following graph is from that Lottery Post News story and will be necessary for part of the theories I'll write about next.

One of the theories I have been thinking about was the possibility that a flaw might be present in the computer picking process. I have abandoned that as a possible reason. It's because if there were a flaw, it would have been present at the beginning of the drawing process not at some point into the process. A flaw of this kind would have been a flaw in logic or in the computer hardware itself. I don't think the computer reprogrammed itself to produce a logic error and if the hardware is flawed, then we'd see the continuing flawed lottery selections showing up even after they fixed the glitch.

I'm left with two other possible theories, one more disturbing than the other. The obvious first theory is the computer was rigged to go off at a pre-described date of 2007-08-08. It's possible someone either within the state lottery organization rigged the computer or someone within the computer supplier's organization rigged the computer. Flaws in logic and hardware don't usually lend themselves to happenstance, usually it has a helping hand and usually it's a human one at that. Also, looking at the graph above, why did the Cash 4 percentage have a nearly straight climb up at about the Aug 8 time frame? As you can see for the Cash 4, it's a mostly upward slant after Aug 8. This upward trend coincides with the suspected anomalies' trigger date of Aug 8. It's almost as if some knew when that date would be. Now, I can see some of the Self Picking Lottery diehards picking up on this, but as a percentage of the Self Picking population who might and even smaller portion of the total Playing population, I don't see how that could account for the straight climb up in percentage of singles played. Also, notice the decline in percentage begins BEFORE the announcement of the glitch on Aug 21. Almost like someone on the inside knew ahead of time what was going to happen and then notified their cohorts in crime. On Aug 20 there was an immediate drop off, then came the announcement on Aug 21.

The other possible theory is more dark and sinister. It still implicates the possible involvement of either the lottery organization and/or the lottery supplier personnel. The theory is that computer generated number systems are designed to produce the lesser number of winning number combinations to maximize the profit that state lotteries need. In this case, we'd need anyone who played the lottery during that time frame for the Tennessee Lottery Cash 4 and Cash 3 to sound in on their winnings and loses. We'd also need the time frame when you noticed there was a problem and did you try to capitalized on it and when did you start. Did your winnings increase, stay the same or decrease during that period of Jul 27 to Aug 19? Were you consistent in your playing? Did you use past lottery results to derive your picks? These are very important questions because their answers have a serious implication into the proving or disproving of this theory.

The intricate workings of this are complex but not beyond comprehension. The understanding of this last theory is multifaceted but bear with me. Because of someone's mistake within the Tennessee Lottery, we may have the proof we need to expose the truth about these computer generated numbers. When that person used the 'u' code instead of the 'r' code, it gave us the advantage of narrowing the field of playable numbers. That narrowed field of numbers basically made it more difficult for the computer to randomly hide its devious act. It began showing up as anomalies in the picking process. Mostly likely the result of players picking up on the new picking structure that was inadvertently imposed by the 'u' code. As players began playing more singles, the computer began trying to figure out where to pick but only had a more narrow choice of playable numbers to follow. Trying to do what it was programmed to do, it was forced to choose numbers that would ultimately start producing the anomalies. These anomalies, are anomalies, because of the laws that must be followed by Quantum Lottery Mechanics were not; the rules it would have followed for a truly random selection were essentially violated.

When that person put the 'u' code in, there was for a small draw period when the numbers were truly random. It was at the beginning on 2007-07-28 for draw index 1 to draw index 20. However, seemingly out of nowhere, on 2007-08-08 at draw index 21, the laws of Quantum Lottery Mechanics seemed to just fall apart. Maybe if the correct code was placed in the computer we might not even be discussing this as a topic, but that person did. Fortunately for us, that person did... Thank you.

What to learn, document people. I can't stress that enough, document, document, document. Keep as extensive a record as you can of your playing and posting of numbers; keep track of your winning and losing. There are more instruments for detecting randomness than what was presented here and the list is growing thanks to the new field of possibility, Quantum Lottery Mechanics. I hope many of you reply, if not here, anywhere within the Lottery Post and most importantly with YOUR government officials. Don't take the kind of ridiculous number scheme they are trying to pull off on us, help by documenting and prove the truth.

Presented 'AS IS' and for Entertainment Purposes Only.
Any gain or loss is your responsibility.