Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 6, 2016, 12:39 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

# The 2.882 System

Topic closed. 175 replies. Last post 9 years ago by trevadon.

 Page 4 of 12
PrintE-mailLink
Sunny California
United States
Member #40295
May 31, 2006
7712 Posts
Offline
 Posted: February 10, 2008, 12:47 pm - IP Logged

The numbers are small but I found another problem.  Still working with the 2nd step of the example and using the calculator that came with windows, the last 4 digits of the 12 string is off by one.  instead of getting 9083, I got 9084.  What am I doing wrong?

4.21385989084 41733875725325683211

Hello wpb!

Still at it,I see,haha. Yes,maybe you missed this when I showed it-----

I tried dividing 53 by 2.882---

Scientific calculator gave me these--

183900069396

638098783470

221408321814

My 12 digit gave me the same results for the first and last set of numbers but the middle one gave me

638098783469

Exactly what you are saying,off by 1 number. Again,if you want the exact numbers you will probably have to buy that 12 digit calculator.

Charlotte North Carolina
United States
Member #464
July 9, 2002
17392 Posts
Offline
 Posted: February 10, 2008, 1:07 pm - IP Logged

instead of 9083 I got 9084 plus 1 from what I should have gotten.  in your example, the scientific calculator gave you 470 and your 12 digit gave you 469, once again the scientific example is plus 1.  I just thought I may have missed a rounding factor in the scientific method somewhere on the second calculation.  If I have time today, I will look for the 12 digit calculator.

wpb

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19825 Posts
Offline
 Posted: February 10, 2008, 2:02 pm - IP Logged

instead of 9083 I got 9084 plus 1 from what I should have gotten.  in your example, the scientific calculator gave you 470 and your 12 digit gave you 469, once again the scientific example is plus 1.  I just thought I may have missed a rounding factor in the scientific method somewhere on the second calculation.  If I have time today, I will look for the 12 digit calculator.

You're right, the 12 digit calculator rounds off every result to 12 digits or less because of its limits and when you hit the equal sign it divides that result by 2.882 while the scientific calculator divides the number with all the shown digits by 2.882.

If you want the same results on the scientific calculator as the 12 digit calculator, you will have to simulate those limits by re-entering the number as a 12 digit number that rounded off and divide it by 2.882.

United States
Member #27050
November 26, 2005
40272 Posts
Offline
 Posted: February 10, 2008, 3:46 pm - IP Logged

Thank you for your system lottolaughs.... just a suggestion if you find this really takes off!  It looks like you are essentially working with pairs.  So for every pair you come up with a set of 12 numbers.  So instead of doing the exercise every draw, you may want to make a chart which corresponds to the 99 pairs (00 pair doesn't work!).  Just a suggestions!

Charlotte North Carolina
United States
Member #464
July 9, 2002
17392 Posts
Offline
 Posted: February 10, 2008, 3:48 pm - IP Logged

You're right, the 12 digit calculator rounds off every result to 12 digits or less because of its limits and when you hit the equal sign it divides that result by 2.882 while the scientific calculator divides the number with all the shown digits by 2.882.

If you want the same results on the scientific calculator as the 12 digit calculator, you will have to simulate those limits by re-entering the number as a 12 digit number that rounded off and divide it by 2.882.

Thank you RJOH!

wpb

California
United States
Member #4471
April 27, 2004
1574 Posts
Offline
 Posted: February 10, 2008, 3:55 pm - IP Logged

Thank you for your system lottolaughs.... just a suggestion if you find this really takes off!  It looks like you are essentially working with pairs.  So for every pair you come up with a set of 12 numbers.  So instead of doing the exercise every draw, you may want to make a chart which corresponds to the 99 pairs (00 pair doesn't work!).  Just a suggestions!

There are 55 pairs, not 99.

United States
Member #27050
November 26, 2005
40272 Posts
Offline
 Posted: February 10, 2008, 4:02 pm - IP Logged

There are 55 pairs, not 99.

How so?

California
United States
Member #4471
April 27, 2004
1574 Posts
Offline
 Posted: February 10, 2008, 4:06 pm - IP Logged

How so?

For instance 01 is a pair, but 10 is the same pair when you are working with pairs.

New Member
Pennsylvania
United States
Member #57809
January 19, 2008
6 Posts
Offline
 Posted: February 10, 2008, 4:06 pm - IP Logged

Thanks for the system lottolaughs. It worked on my first attempt.

Hit on PA Midday Daily Number with the system.

Midday draw  (234)  hit boxed!

Thanks again. I will be tracking results, hope the trend continues!

United States
Member #27050
November 26, 2005
40272 Posts
Offline
 Posted: February 10, 2008, 4:31 pm - IP Logged

For instance 01 is a pair, but 10 is the same pair when you are working with pairs.

While I agree with you Britney, when working with pairs in general. Working with lottolaugh's system the two pairs are not created equally.

For example the 45 pair....using lottolaugh's system dividing 45 by 2.883 will give you a set of different number when dividing 54 by 2.883.  So you really have 99 pairs for her system (again 00 does not work).

California
United States
Member #4471
April 27, 2004
1574 Posts
Offline
 Posted: February 10, 2008, 4:46 pm - IP Logged

While I agree with you Britney, when working with pairs in general. Working with lottolaugh's system the two pairs are not created equally.

For example the 45 pair....using lottolaugh's system dividing 45 by 2.883 will give you a set of different number when dividing 54 by 2.883.  So you really have 99 pairs for her system (again 00 does not work).

I missunderstood.  I thought you were talking about pairs in the results, not the input.  Sorry.

United States
Member #27050
November 26, 2005
40272 Posts
Offline
 Posted: February 10, 2008, 5:00 pm - IP Logged

I missunderstood.  I thought you were talking about pairs in the results, not the input.  Sorry.

No problem..!  :)

NC
United States
Member #29378
January 1, 2006
552 Posts
Offline
 Posted: February 10, 2008, 5:35 pm - IP Logged

Excellent method I'll be testing it out in NC & a lil in VA (on the border and all)

Any who, I just wanted to justify everyone's difference in numbers:

The 12 digit calculator truncates numbers after well 12 digits which means it chops them off without rounding...

The calculator on the computer does not truncate therefore when you hit the equals sign again it gives you a more precise result but incorrect because neither you nor the calculator on the computer truncated the rest of the numbers for the next press of the equals sign.

If you are using EXCEL you can set up your spread sheet to a certain precison and tell it to truncate X Many Numbersbefore doing the next calculation.

Well, hope this helps... Pogo

United States
Member #56862
December 6, 2007
1826 Posts
Offline
 Posted: February 10, 2008, 7:56 pm - IP Logged

hey lottolaughs, i tried it.  ok. i used tenn mid and eve (saturday) using 2.882 and narrowed my field

down. missed by one number on 2 of my tries.  then went back and used 2.772 just for fun and

it worked. didn't play it but it worked.  my question is should i keep using the last 2 draws 1 mid

and 1 eve, or should i seperate mid and eve.  if you have time could you post tn so i can compare

mine to yours. this is weird but i like it.  thanks for your kindness and insight .  kid

NC
United States
Member #46741
September 26, 2006
653 Posts
Offline
 Posted: February 10, 2008, 8:02 pm - IP Logged

Bravo on your system...Just realized I don't have a calculator at all. I gave them all away. I will be hitting up Office Depot tomorrow to do some backtesting in NC. Good luck to all..

 Page 4 of 12