Welcome Guest
You last visited January 24, 2017, 8:11 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

# My digit system for pick-5 or pick-6 lottery

Topic closed. 684 replies. Last post 6 years ago by jimmy4164.

 Page 27 of 46
Tx
United States
Member #4570
May 4, 2004
5180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: July 27, 2010, 12:36 am - IP Logged

Some definitions of "Random" that I found just now:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/random

Seems to me that they are good enough definitions of what has been named "Random"

I don't say at all, that there is such a thing as "Random", only that to me those appear to be good enough definitions of what people have termed "Random", that is, of what people believe that "Random" is, "IF" there is or "IF" there was any such thing as it (Random).

------------

Now, let us, see what people say that "Prediction" is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction

And that brought me to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurists

Other definitions of "Prediction":

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prediction

Somhow this time, I didn't find many definitions of "Prediction"

-----------

I just now found this and it might be good reading:

http://ezinearticles.com/?Lottery-Predictions---Exposing-the-Whole-Truth&id=2625595

------------

"If "Math" says that it is so, then it must be so!

Not right!

Math as it is right now, has some wrong notions.

Like "Random".

"Random" and "Prediction" or "Forecasting" are mostly not well understood.

People don't understand the relation between "Random" and "Statistical Prediction", they seem to think that the one "Negates" voids or nulls the other one.

"Random" and non random, both allow for prediction to be made, the one because is random and the other because is not, of course non random makes for more accurate forecasts, while maybe random only gives some measure of predictability, but because a "Little Knowledge" is "Incomplete Knowledge" I might be wrong and Random might be just as good as non random prediction-wise, but I doubt that.

-----

Maybe people say that using past facts might in the long run produce total or accumulated prediction results no better than those produced by "Quick Picks"

But past facts by themselves are nothing at all, the key factor is "Right or proper interpretation and use of the past data"

As different people, makes for different interpretations and uses.

That one thing that is the same is the data, yet people don't see the same "data-factors" on the very same source-data.

-----

It was posted here that there is no prediction Math logic to breaking up and using in that way the 2 digits that make up a jackpot lottery number as the 2 digits are really just "one fact-unit factor", Yes, they are one fact-unit factor, yet due to the nature of random statistics and prediction itself, it is valid and of use to break a jackpot number into Lth and Rth digits.

A little or no knowledge of what random, stats and prediction are makes for "No Understanding" and what is called Math does not seem to help, due to some wrong Math notions.

Well, results speak for themselves.

And no, I am not here to prove nor disprove anything, I am making this post just to waste some exta time that I have.

Fernando.

"Ten measures of beauty descended to the world, nine were taken by Jerusalem."

United States
Member #59354
March 13, 2008
4094 Posts
Offline
 Posted: July 27, 2010, 4:27 am - IP Logged

My comment is not really lottery related but I think it relates a little to this conversation.  I am a software architect and was fortunate enough to cash in some stock options from a previous job that allowed me the luxury to take a few years off and travel across Europe.  Once I got back I built a game room and bought a 9' pool table.  I becames obsessed with pool (I do have an obsessive personality) and would play all day.  I bought an advanced training tape that was a workout for developing a pure stroke.  Alot of the workout was about being able to repeat a shot 10 times in a row and to continue practicing a particular shot until you could do it 10 times in a row.  After each shot was demoed on the tape I would stop the tape and go to the pool table until I could do it.  Well it came to the end of the tape and he had one last show.  The instructor said if you could do this shot then you had had an absolutely perfect stroke in that you hit the ball dead center every time.  So I turned off the tape and went to the pool table to try and do it 10 times in a row.  Most of the other shots it took me anywhere from a few minutes to a few hours.  This one took me 2 days before I did it one time 10 times in a row.  I then wanted to accomplish this feat again and it took me another day.  So it took me 3 days to accomplish the shot 10 times in a row two times.  I continued to practice the shot and finally by the end of the week, I got to where it took me less than 5 minutes to make the shot 10 times in a row.  Another week past and I finally turned on the tape expecting to just see credits rolling.  This is when the instructor said "For the last shot just shoot it until you do it 10 times, no one can make that shot 10 times in a row!".    If I had watched the tape completely thru I would have had a completely different expectation of my results.  Because I hadn't watched that last 10 seconds of the tape I worked by butt off for 1 week under the assumption that any good pool player could make this shot 10 times in a row.  This is the power of the mind.  Those that say that you "can't" have already biased there mind to an expected result, its those that can keep there minds free are the ones that are going to make the next progression.

Jimmy

JW

Thumbs Up.  Much of what we think becomes reality.  I Can't explain it but find it to be true.

RL

Working on my Ph.D.  "University of hard Knocks"

I will consider the opinion that my winnings are a product of chance if you are willing to consider

they are not.  Many great discoveries come while searching for something else

Trump / 2016 & 2020

United States
Member #59354
March 13, 2008
4094 Posts
Offline
 Posted: July 27, 2010, 5:19 pm - IP Logged

Some definitions of "Random" that I found just now:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/random

Seems to me that they are good enough definitions of what has been named "Random"

I don't say at all, that there is such a thing as "Random", only that to me those appear to be good enough definitions of what people have termed "Random", that is, of what people believe that "Random" is, "IF" there is or "IF" there was any such thing as it (Random).

------------

Now, let us, see what people say that "Prediction" is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction

And that brought me to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurists

Other definitions of "Prediction":

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prediction

Somhow this time, I didn't find many definitions of "Prediction"

-----------

I just now found this and it might be good reading:

http://ezinearticles.com/?Lottery-Predictions---Exposing-the-Whole-Truth&id=2625595

------------

"If "Math" says that it is so, then it must be so!

Not right!

Math as it is right now, has some wrong notions.

Like "Random".

"Random" and "Prediction" or "Forecasting" are mostly not well understood.

People don't understand the relation between "Random" and "Statistical Prediction", they seem to think that the one "Negates" voids or nulls the other one.

"Random" and non random, both allow for prediction to be made, the one because is random and the other because is not, of course non random makes for more accurate forecasts, while maybe random only gives some measure of predictability, but because a "Little Knowledge" is "Incomplete Knowledge" I might be wrong and Random might be just as good as non random prediction-wise, but I doubt that.

-----

Maybe people say that using past facts might in the long run produce total or accumulated prediction results no better than those produced by "Quick Picks"

But past facts by themselves are nothing at all, the key factor is "Right or proper interpretation and use of the past data"

As different people, makes for different interpretations and uses.

That one thing that is the same is the data, yet people don't see the same "data-factors" on the very same source-data.

-----

It was posted here that there is no prediction Math logic to breaking up and using in that way the 2 digits that make up a jackpot lottery number as the 2 digits are really just "one fact-unit factor", Yes, they are one fact-unit factor, yet due to the nature of random statistics and prediction itself, it is valid and of use to break a jackpot number into Lth and Rth digits.

A little or no knowledge of what random, stats and prediction are makes for "No Understanding" and what is called Math does not seem to help, due to some wrong Math notions.

Well, results speak for themselves.

And no, I am not here to prove nor disprove anything, I am making this post just to waste some exta time that I have.

Fernando.

Lantern

I like very much what you have pointed out in your post.  Many that don't believe in system play

forget about the human element.  I have found this so true. The wife and I both use my system

and very often come up with different results.  It's more how we interpet the data than the data

it's self.  The data gives us what has happened and the stats for the matrix but we must make a

choice as to what to do with each bit of information.  Every aspect of playing the lottery revolves

around making choices.  Even if one decides to purchase a QP they have made a choice.  I think

that most people who have read this post know that I have a odd way of looking at things.

I don't believe in random.

I don't believe in luck

I don't believe in fate

I don't believe in odds

If I believed in these things than I would be giving them power over me.  If I play and don't win

It is because I do not have the correct set of numbers.  If I play and win then it is not because

of luck.   When I purchase a ticket, It, at the very least has as good a chance as any other set

so the odds mean nothing.  If fate had anything to do with it then why would I do anything.

Nothing is random because every event is a series of other events that if known, could be used

to recreate the event.

It is true that the lottery is designed to produce a sets of numbers that seem to have nothing in

common but this cannot be done.  The commonalities may be very small but they do exist and if

used correctly will improve ones play.  Another method is to choose from groups of numbers that

have produced the most sets.  All this does not mean that you will win but it can put you in a better

position to win.

RL

Working on my Ph.D.  "University of hard Knocks"

I will consider the opinion that my winnings are a product of chance if you are willing to consider

they are not.  Many great discoveries come while searching for something else

Trump / 2016 & 2020

NY State
United States
Member #92609
June 10, 2010
3823 Posts
Offline
 Posted: July 27, 2010, 10:07 pm - IP Logged

Lantern

I like very much what you have pointed out in your post.  Many that don't believe in system play

forget about the human element.  I have found this so true. The wife and I both use my system

and very often come up with different results.  It's more how we interpet the data than the data

it's self.  The data gives us what has happened and the stats for the matrix but we must make a

choice as to what to do with each bit of information.  Every aspect of playing the lottery revolves

around making choices.  Even if one decides to purchase a QP they have made a choice.  I think

that most people who have read this post know that I have a odd way of looking at things.

I don't believe in random.

I don't believe in luck

I don't believe in fate

I don't believe in odds

If I believed in these things than I would be giving them power over me.  If I play and don't win

It is because I do not have the correct set of numbers.  If I play and win then it is not because

of luck.   When I purchase a ticket, It, at the very least has as good a chance as any other set

so the odds mean nothing.  If fate had anything to do with it then why would I do anything.

Nothing is random because every event is a series of other events that if known, could be used

to recreate the event.

It is true that the lottery is designed to produce a sets of numbers that seem to have nothing in

common but this cannot be done.  The commonalities may be very small but they do exist and if

used correctly will improve ones play.  Another method is to choose from groups of numbers that

have produced the most sets.  All this does not mean that you will win but it can put you in a better

position to win.

RL

RL,

I couldn't agree more.

Will I win a JP someday?  I dont know.  Maybe, maybe not.  But I do know I enjoy the thrill of chase.

As a matter of fact, I think I might be a tiny bit disappointed if I do win a JP, because the chase will be over.  But then, I can start all over again!  Winning a JP would never prevent me from trying to win another one.  And, while it cant be proven one way or the other if a system provided me with the winning numbers, I'm free to believe whatever I choose.

I think you are aware that I personally know someone that wrote his own software and won a NY Take5 JP.  I can tell you that no one will ever tell him it was not due to his software.  Also, I have a relative that won a Take5 JP last year. (He won with a QP.)  He doesnt care HOW he won it, and he'd be just as happy either way.

And...... BOTH guys still play Take5!

Oh, and the guy that won a JP using his own software?  He won it approximately 10 years ago....

About playing the lottery --  You will lose more than you win. Until you hit a jackpot.  Then everything changes!

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: July 28, 2010, 1:49 am - IP Logged

RL,

I couldn't agree more.

Will I win a JP someday?  I dont know.  Maybe, maybe not.  But I do know I enjoy the thrill of chase.

As a matter of fact, I think I might be a tiny bit disappointed if I do win a JP, because the chase will be over.  But then, I can start all over again!  Winning a JP would never prevent me from trying to win another one.  And, while it cant be proven one way or the other if a system provided me with the winning numbers, I'm free to believe whatever I choose.

I think you are aware that I personally know someone that wrote his own software and won a NY Take5 JP.  I can tell you that no one will ever tell him it was not due to his software.  Also, I have a relative that won a Take5 JP last year. (He won with a QP.)  He doesnt care HOW he won it, and he'd be just as happy either way.

And...... BOTH guys still play Take5!

Oh, and the guy that won a JP using his own software?  He won it approximately 10 years ago....

GiveFive,

I'm a stock trader and I've written tons of software to help me choose stocks and make decisions about when to buy and sell them.  When a new trading system is developed, the first order of business is to BACKTEST it.  Many years of quote history of thousands of stocks are available on the internet, just as Lottery results are.  I belong to several groups that share systems.  What we spend MOST of our time on at meetings, with overhead projectors displaying our laptop screens, is BACKTEST RESULTS!  We go to great pains to ensure that parameters we generate during optimization runs with the backtest software are judged based on their performance when applied to data other than what was used to generate them.  NO SYSTEM TRADER WOULD THINK OF THROWING REAL MONEY AT A SYSTEM WITHOUT BACKTESTING IT!

I may have missed something, but in all the dismissals of probability theory [and ME] above, I found no suggestions that maybe some simple BACKTESTS might be in order since probability, random number generators, and ball machines are not to be trusted.

If your system is in the Mystical category here, it probably will not be possible to backtest it, with or without computers.  However, most systems I've perused in the Lottery Systems category are quite amenable to computerized backtesting.  A BASIC program to backtest the PA Pick-3 Straight buying 1 Quick Pick daily is 8 statements long!  Can you guess what the result was when applied to the actual 33+ years of draws?  OK people, if your system can do better than Quick Picks, let's see the results of a backtest. No Mysterious Mathematics necessary!!

If those who claim they don't believe in chance or probability try to dismiss THIS post, I think it will be time to start questioning what REALLY motivates them here.  On that note, check out the very end of the Ezine Article linked above, The Whole Truth...  Note the business the "Professor" is in.

--Jimmy

p.s.  For the record: My wife plays the lottery every day.  I play twice a week.  We dream about what we might do with a jackpot too, just like those who believe in Dream Picks.  WE DO NOT WANT LOTTERIES TO CEASE AND WE DO NOT WANT PEOPLE TO STOP PLAYING THEM!

p.s.s.  We are seakers of TRUTH!

United States
Member #59354
March 13, 2008
4094 Posts
Offline
 Posted: July 28, 2010, 7:58 am - IP Logged

GiveFive,

I'm a stock trader and I've written tons of software to help me choose stocks and make decisions about when to buy and sell them.  When a new trading system is developed, the first order of business is to BACKTEST it.  Many years of quote history of thousands of stocks are available on the internet, just as Lottery results are.  I belong to several groups that share systems.  What we spend MOST of our time on at meetings, with overhead projectors displaying our laptop screens, is BACKTEST RESULTS!  We go to great pains to ensure that parameters we generate during optimization runs with the backtest software are judged based on their performance when applied to data other than what was used to generate them.  NO SYSTEM TRADER WOULD THINK OF THROWING REAL MONEY AT A SYSTEM WITHOUT BACKTESTING IT!

I may have missed something, but in all the dismissals of probability theory [and ME] above, I found no suggestions that maybe some simple BACKTESTS might be in order since probability, random number generators, and ball machines are not to be trusted.

If your system is in the Mystical category here, it probably will not be possible to backtest it, with or without computers.  However, most systems I've perused in the Lottery Systems category are quite amenable to computerized backtesting.  A BASIC program to backtest the PA Pick-3 Straight buying 1 Quick Pick daily is 8 statements long!  Can you guess what the result was when applied to the actual 33+ years of draws?  OK people, if your system can do better than Quick Picks, let's see the results of a backtest. No Mysterious Mathematics necessary!!

If those who claim they don't believe in chance or probability try to dismiss THIS post, I think it will be time to start questioning what REALLY motivates them here.  On that note, check out the very end of the Ezine Article linked above, The Whole Truth...  Note the business the "Professor" is in.

--Jimmy

p.s.  For the record: My wife plays the lottery every day.  I play twice a week.  We dream about what we might do with a jackpot too, just like those who believe in Dream Picks.  WE DO NOT WANT LOTTERIES TO CEASE AND WE DO NOT WANT PEOPLE TO STOP PLAYING THEM!

p.s.s.  We are seakers of TRUTH!

Jimmy

I got to say this for you, you don't give up very easily.  First If I backtest the software for each

drawing and set the variables correctly for each then it will hit a 5 of 5 every drawing.  How can

you backtest a system that requires one to select different variables for each run.  The system

that is described here is mechanical in nature and intended to be used as a tool.  It will only

generate the sets that pass the inputs made by the user.   If one does not select the correct

settings than no 5 of 5 match,  It can however produce many lower prizes even if several mistakes

I have not posted my bayesian system here because most would not be able to gain anything

from it without the software.  I have taken a small part of it and built a small app I call 12-buttons.

Each button has only two states (on) or (off).  This allows for a total of 4096 different sequences.

Next the [run] button is pressed and it builds the sets that match the sequence for the 12 selections.

It can produce as few as 32 sets with a maximun of around 500 for a 5-39 matrix.  575757 / 4096 =

140.6

If all 12 buttons are correct then the winning set will be within the sets built by the process.  This is

not really that impressive but consider this.  If the first 3 to 4 selections are correct then it will give you

the first 1 to 3 numbers that will be in the winning set and they will be in their correct position.

Now I will calculate these odds for picking the first 2 numbers in there correct positions from only 4

choices of 50 / 50.   2x2x2x2 = 16 = 1 in 16 for having the first two or three numbers in the next

drawing.  Even If i miss the forth selection I can still have the first two numbers for the next draw

and with it can have a many as 4.

Now show me the odds for selecting at least two numbers in the correct order from a pool of 39.

When selecting a number from a pool of 39 one does not know where that number will fall within

the set,  and can gain nothing else from knowing it, unless it is 1 or 39.  With the method above I

not only have at least the first 2 but know the lowest value that the third number can be.

You may think this is impossable but let me assure you it is possible.  And no I will not tell you how.

This has a much better rate of return than any number based system that I have ever tried and that

includes QP's.  I will not bore you with things like how that this sequence of (on) and (off) produces

patterns that make it somewhat easy to predict 80% or better of the 12.  I will also not bore you with

the details of how that this is just one of 4 processes that the bayesian part of my system uses.  I will

say that if you think that I am trying to predict what will happen next based on what numbers have or

have not been drawn is incorrect.  This part looks at no data whatsoever, zero, nada, none.

I made this post with only one thing in mind and that was to give people that pick there own numbers

another way to do it.  If you look here at LP you will find many post that deal with the pick-3 / pick-4

games.  These games are nothing more than splitting the digits into 3 or 4 groups of 10 and then selecting

a digit for each.  Example 2-7-3  = 273

I am doing nothing here that has not been done thousands of times.   I don't know why that you have

picked this post or even this site to poor out your thoughts on how wrong we all are in trying to pick

our own numbers.  We that do pick our own numbers do not like QP's for the most part.  There are

many post that discuss QP's vs SP's.  I think you would be better off in one of these making your case

and I think many here would agree.

Here is a list of the first 53 of 243 total sets produced using "off-on-off-off-off-off-on-on-on-on-off-off."

The first 3 or 4 are the most important as they produce the first 2 to 3 numbers and if the first two or

three selections are correct then the first two or three numbers in each set will be correct and in the right

position within the drawing.

These are raw sets and have not been filtered.  I have found it very easy to filter and reduce sets by

a factor of 10 to 15 and still have a 90% or better hit rate.  243 / 15 = 16.2.  However with the Bayesian

part of my software running up to par filters are not needed for most drawings.

02 07 11 27 31
02 07 11 27 33
02 07 11 27 35
02 07 11 29 30
02 07 11 29 32
02 07 11 29 34
02 07 11 31 33
02 07 11 31 35
02 07 11 31 37
02 07 12 18 24
02 07 12 18 26
02 07 12 18 28
02 07 12 19 24
02 07 12 19 26
02 07 12 19 28
02 07 12 20 25
02 07 12 20 27
02 07 12 20 29
02 07 12 32 35
02 07 12 32 37
02 07 12 32 39
02 07 12 36 37
02 07 12 36 39
02 07 12 37 39
02 07 13 14 29
02 07 13 14 31
02 07 13 14 33
02 07 18 33 34
02 07 18 33 36
02 07 18 33 38
02 07 18 38 39
02 07 19 20 22
02 07 19 20 24
02 07 19 21 22
02 07 19 21 24
02 07 19 21 26
02 07 19 34 39
02 07 19 35 37
02 07 19 35 39
02 07 20 21 31
02 07 20 21 33
02 07 20 21 35
02 07 20 22 34
02 07 20 22 36
02 07 20 22 38
02 07 21 23 25
02 07 21 23 27
02 07 21 23 29
02 07 21 24 30
02 07 21 24 32
02 07 21 24 34
02 07 21 25 36
02 07 21 25 38   5 of 5 match 8/27/10

Working on my Ph.D.  "University of hard Knocks"

I will consider the opinion that my winnings are a product of chance if you are willing to consider

they are not.  Many great discoveries come while searching for something else

Trump / 2016 & 2020

New York
United States
Member #66776
November 6, 2008
91 Posts
Offline
 Posted: July 29, 2010, 1:10 am - IP Logged

Jimmy

Yes, I've traded stocks back in the day. I used Stochaistics as a way of analyzing charts. Formula's of finding K , etc were day to day. Sometimes I picked the right stock trend using stochaistics, sometimes the worm turned. Either way, it was a system of prediction. A system of anticipating something to happen. A system entrenched in historical factual data to the granular level. Similar to a method of picking a winning number combination.

I just do not see where your going. If you traded stocks, your a gambler at heart.

Tomorrow's numbers are in Todays results!

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: July 29, 2010, 3:02 am - IP Logged

Jimmy

I got to say this for you, you don't give up very easily.  First If I backtest the software for each

drawing and set the variables correctly for each then it will hit a 5 of 5 every drawing.  How can

you backtest a system that requires one to select different variables for each run.  The system

that is described here is mechanical in nature and intended to be used as a tool.  It will only

generate the sets that pass the inputs made by the user.   If one does not select the correct

settings than no 5 of 5 match,  It can however produce many lower prizes even if several mistakes

I have not posted my bayesian system here because most would not be able to gain anything

from it without the software.  I have taken a small part of it and built a small app I call 12-buttons.

Each button has only two states (on) or (off).  This allows for a total of 4096 different sequences.

Next the [run] button is pressed and it builds the sets that match the sequence for the 12 selections.

It can produce as few as 32 sets with a maximun of around 500 for a 5-39 matrix.  575757 / 4096 =

140.6

If all 12 buttons are correct then the winning set will be within the sets built by the process.  This is

not really that impressive but consider this.  If the first 3 to 4 selections are correct then it will give you

the first 1 to 3 numbers that will be in the winning set and they will be in their correct position.

Now I will calculate these odds for picking the first 2 numbers in there correct positions from only 4

choices of 50 / 50.   2x2x2x2 = 16 = 1 in 16 for having the first two or three numbers in the next

drawing.  Even If i miss the forth selection I can still have the first two numbers for the next draw

and with it can have a many as 4.

Now show me the odds for selecting at least two numbers in the correct order from a pool of 39.

When selecting a number from a pool of 39 one does not know where that number will fall within

the set,  and can gain nothing else from knowing it, unless it is 1 or 39.  With the method above I

not only have at least the first 2 but know the lowest value that the third number can be.

You may think this is impossable but let me assure you it is possible.  And no I will not tell you how.

This has a much better rate of return than any number based system that I have ever tried and that

includes QP's.  I will not bore you with things like how that this sequence of (on) and (off) produces

patterns that make it somewhat easy to predict 80% or better of the 12.  I will also not bore you with

the details of how that this is just one of 4 processes that the bayesian part of my system uses.  I will

say that if you think that I am trying to predict what will happen next based on what numbers have or

have not been drawn is incorrect.  This part looks at no data whatsoever, zero, nada, none.

I made this post with only one thing in mind and that was to give people that pick there own numbers

another way to do it.  If you look here at LP you will find many post that deal with the pick-3 / pick-4

games.  These games are nothing more than splitting the digits into 3 or 4 groups of 10 and then selecting

a digit for each.  Example 2-7-3  = 273

I am doing nothing here that has not been done thousands of times.   I don't know why that you have

picked this post or even this site to poor out your thoughts on how wrong we all are in trying to pick

our own numbers.  We that do pick our own numbers do not like QP's for the most part.  There are

many post that discuss QP's vs SP's.  I think you would be better off in one of these making your case

and I think many here would agree.

Here is a list of the first 53 of 243 total sets produced using "off-on-off-off-off-off-on-on-on-on-off-off."

The first 3 or 4 are the most important as they produce the first 2 to 3 numbers and if the first two or

three selections are correct then the first two or three numbers in each set will be correct and in the right

position within the drawing.

These are raw sets and have not been filtered.  I have found it very easy to filter and reduce sets by

a factor of 10 to 15 and still have a 90% or better hit rate.  243 / 15 = 16.2.  However with the Bayesian

part of my software running up to par filters are not needed for most drawings.

02 07 11 27 31
02 07 11 27 33
02 07 11 27 35
02 07 11 29 30
02 07 11 29 32
02 07 11 29 34
02 07 11 31 33
02 07 11 31 35
02 07 11 31 37
02 07 12 18 24
02 07 12 18 26
02 07 12 18 28
02 07 12 19 24
02 07 12 19 26
02 07 12 19 28
02 07 12 20 25
02 07 12 20 27
02 07 12 20 29
02 07 12 32 35
02 07 12 32 37
02 07 12 32 39
02 07 12 36 37
02 07 12 36 39
02 07 12 37 39
02 07 13 14 29
02 07 13 14 31
02 07 13 14 33
02 07 18 33 34
02 07 18 33 36
02 07 18 33 38
02 07 18 38 39
02 07 19 20 22
02 07 19 20 24
02 07 19 21 22
02 07 19 21 24
02 07 19 21 26
02 07 19 34 39
02 07 19 35 37
02 07 19 35 39
02 07 20 21 31
02 07 20 21 33
02 07 20 21 35
02 07 20 22 34
02 07 20 22 36
02 07 20 22 38
02 07 21 23 25
02 07 21 23 27
02 07 21 23 29
02 07 21 24 30
02 07 21 24 32
02 07 21 24 34
02 07 21 25 36
02 07 21 25 38   5 of 5 match 8/27/10

RL,

All of your detail here is of little value without the secret, proprietary ingredient you allude to.  However, I don't blame you for hiding it if your system is really successful.

You seem to be saying that yours is a "hands on" system, requiring a lot of user intervention, perhaps for every play, and therefore, is not amenable to automated backtesting.  As a computer analyst/programmer, you surely would know it is possible to write a backtester with enough variable parameters that you could not only backtest static "switch" settings but let the program loop through multiple combinations of settings and optimize your system as well.  Look closely at AMIBROKER.  It's all doable.  I'm astonished you have no idea what your system's rate of return is.

I came to this website to see if anyone else shared my concerns about fraud potential in the PA Millionaire Raffle where the winner's list is computer generated.  Several people agreed somewhat, but I didn't learn anything I didn't already know from the several hours I invested.  I had no interest in critiquing lottery systems when I arrived.  But while browsing the site I observed a lot of vagueness in the reporting of allegedly successful systems.  If anyone has seriously backtested their system, and it makes money over the long haul, they would surely report this, wouldn't they?

But wait!  In your Reply above, you said,  "You may think this is impossible but let me assure you it is possible.  And no I will not tell you how.  This has a much better rate of return than any number based system that I have ever tried and that includes QP's."

This statement tells me that you DO backtest, at least informally, and you DO know the approximate rate of return of your system.

So, what is your rate of return?  Over what period of time?

You needn't divulge secrets to tell us this!

Since your system does not look back and eschews probability theory, it is definitely intriguing.  By the way, if you don't look at past results, just what are the criteria that, in your words, "requires one to select different variables for each run."?   I suspect you ARE looking back, to help you decide which numbers to exclude from your working subsets.  For your sake, I hope your secret ingredient has more substance than what Dorothy discovered Behind the Curtain.

I'm also confused by your several references to the "Bayesian parts" of your software.  You have stated clearly in this thread that you do not believe in probability, but yet...

Bayes' Theorem is ALL ABOUT PROBABILITY!  Conditional probability.

What is P(A|B)?  (The probability of A, given that B has already occured)

--Jimmy

United States
Member #59354
March 13, 2008
4094 Posts
Offline
 Posted: July 29, 2010, 7:16 am - IP Logged

RL,

All of your detail here is of little value without the secret, proprietary ingredient you allude to.  However, I don't blame you for hiding it if your system is really successful.

You seem to be saying that yours is a "hands on" system, requiring a lot of user intervention, perhaps for every play, and therefore, is not amenable to automated backtesting.  As a computer analyst/programmer, you surely would know it is possible to write a backtester with enough variable parameters that you could not only backtest static "switch" settings but let the program loop through multiple combinations of settings and optimize your system as well.  Look closely at AMIBROKER.  It's all doable.  I'm astonished you have no idea what your system's rate of return is.

I came to this website to see if anyone else shared my concerns about fraud potential in the PA Millionaire Raffle where the winner's list is computer generated.  Several people agreed somewhat, but I didn't learn anything I didn't already know from the several hours I invested.  I had no interest in critiquing lottery systems when I arrived.  But while browsing the site I observed a lot of vagueness in the reporting of allegedly successful systems.  If anyone has seriously backtested their system, and it makes money over the long haul, they would surely report this, wouldn't they?

But wait!  In your Reply above, you said,  "You may think this is impossible but let me assure you it is possible.  And no I will not tell you how.  This has a much better rate of return than any number based system that I have ever tried and that includes QP's."

This statement tells me that you DO backtest, at least informally, and you DO know the approximate rate of return of your system.

So, what is your rate of return?  Over what period of time?

You needn't divulge secrets to tell us this!

Since your system does not look back and eschews probability theory, it is definitely intriguing.  By the way, if you don't look at past results, just what are the criteria that, in your words, "requires one to select different variables for each run."?   I suspect you ARE looking back, to help you decide which numbers to exclude from your working subsets.  For your sake, I hope your secret ingredient has more substance than what Dorothy discovered Behind the Curtain.

I'm also confused by your several references to the "Bayesian parts" of your software.  You have stated clearly in this thread that you do not believe in probability, but yet...

Bayes' Theorem is ALL ABOUT PROBABILITY!  Conditional probability.

What is P(A|B)?  (The probability of A, given that B has already occured)

--Jimmy

Jimmy

I will say that I am up around 70K last time I checked over the lifetime that I have been doing

this.  Nothing to brag about as I could earn this in a year with hard work.  That is not why I am

doing this.  I ran a backtest by selecting ranges for each of the variables mentioned.  The rate of

return is different depending on the range that is set.  Also the 5-39 game is parimutuel so that

makes the rate of return hard to calculate.  I can normally trap the winning combo with fewer than

500 sets at least 3 to 5 times per month on average but I do not check it at this level very often,

It could be many more.  I am only interested in the less than 50 range.

Backtest for the newest matrix MO-539.  Using only what has been posted here at LP.  This is not

my complete system. These are the base settings I have listed for this posting

Base digits = 1-2-3 MUST HIT

3 OR 4 WILD DIGITS

3  OR 4 BLOCKED DIGITS

DOD = 0-2

DED = 0-2

ID   = 5-6

TD   = 8-9

MD  = 2-4

OD  = 2-4

BN  = 0-2

RN =0-2

PN =1-3

HN = 1-3

5 of 5 Hits = 91 out of 685 drawings, average = 1 in 7.5

This is just for the system posted, everything is in the post and can be checked by anyone that

is interested.  Because I have other functions that I use within my system I can often run these

even wider and get fewer total sets and a higher hit rate for the 5 of 5 matches.  I used nothing

else to backtest for this example, only what I have posted.

I calculate every bit of data in every conceivable way that it can be calculated.   I have charts and

grafts and everything else one could imagine.  I have found that none of these offer much help in

selecting the next set.  I make the calculations for other reasons.  If I do find something that is not

expected than I am all over it.  I don't trust anyone or anything concerning the lottery.  I don't

really agree with you that fraud will be detected very quickly when it can be managed on a day to

day basis with RNG's.  It could be hidden very easily within the standard deviations and no one the

wiser.

You are correct that bayes is all about probability but let me put it another way that we might be on

the same page.  The only time that  I see a number from any set is when I update my database or when

I fill out the playslip.  My database is just a record of events.  All calculations used for selections are based

on the matrix not the database.  The data that is collected is used as a whole and is only checked as such.

I have used the words random, odds, probability, stats to make connections.  I do not mean that I don't

use these I just don't use them in a conventional way and I do not follow there conculsions.  If I did I would

not be able to justify even buying a QP.

I hope this has answered all your questions,  You are correct that I won't release the bayes part

of my system.  I have posted enough of a system that if used correctly will produce solid results.

It is up to the player to reduce sets down to an amount they can afford but as shown in the post

many of the sets gotten from this method will contain lower level prizes even if the jackpot is not won.

RL

Working on my Ph.D.  "University of hard Knocks"

I will consider the opinion that my winnings are a product of chance if you are willing to consider

they are not.  Many great discoveries come while searching for something else

Trump / 2016 & 2020

United States
Member #59354
March 13, 2008
4094 Posts
Offline
 Posted: July 29, 2010, 12:55 pm - IP Logged

Jimmy

MO 5-36

list A = total sets = 575757

list B = total draws 658

Which list  would you use to predict what would most likely occure in the next drawing.

Which list would you use to build your filters

which list would provide the most information

Example.

39% of the sets in list A have 6 ID's

39% of the sets in list B have 6 ID's

Before the very first drawing, I already knew which setting would hit the most and what

percent of the drawings it would hit in.  Where do I get my data, well  now you know.  It

was built into the program as a bias before the first drawing.  When and how bayes uses

this data is another story.

What is P(A|B)?  (The probability of A, given that B has already occured)

Do you still think that I must use what has happened already to use bayes.  I can tell that

you never even considered this, what else might have escaped your thought process.  I have

stated that I do not believe that probability is a law that governs anything and if it is then why

do you say that the lottery numbers cannot be predicted based on past drawings.  I am confused

it can't be both ways.

RL

Working on my Ph.D.  "University of hard Knocks"

I will consider the opinion that my winnings are a product of chance if you are willing to consider

they are not.  Many great discoveries come while searching for something else

Trump / 2016 & 2020

Texas
United States
Member #1477
May 7, 2003
2311 Posts
Offline
 Posted: July 29, 2010, 3:10 pm - IP Logged

Wish I knew how to write software.   Wouldn't have to have mine done for me.  I agree with the "Random Logic" of numbers.   Love to get into discussion with people formally trained in mathematics because I hear the same ole story all the time......"Numbers are Random and each one as the same chance of playing as another".     Then I show them the "how" numbers can be tracked lol

Right now have some people creating software for me for a 35 number system where you Pick 4 numbers.   There is no math to it.   Guess  you could say my process is "Elimination for Determination".  If am successful for this venue I shall return for software for the larger 5 Number and 6 Number games using the same principles.

bgonÃ§alves
Brasil
Member #92564
June 9, 2010
2138 Posts
Offline
 Posted: July 29, 2010, 5:22 pm - IP Logged

Hello, can they help me in the topic endings, a solft or planilia? Or
post?terminçao is it finish type of each dozen! thank you

United States
Member #43694
July 23, 2006
184 Posts
Offline
 Posted: July 30, 2010, 1:49 pm - IP Logged

Perhaps you and jimmy should continue the debate in a the lottery discussion forum?

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: July 30, 2010, 4:42 pm - IP Logged

Jimmy

MO 5-36

list A = total sets = 575757

list B = total draws 658

Which list  would you use to predict what would most likely occure in the next drawing.

Which list would you use to build your filters

which list would provide the most information

Example.

39% of the sets in list A have 6 ID's

39% of the sets in list B have 6 ID's

Before the very first drawing, I already knew which setting would hit the most and what

percent of the drawings it would hit in.  Where do I get my data, well  now you know.  It

was built into the program as a bias before the first drawing.  When and how bayes uses

this data is another story.

What is P(A|B)?  (The probability of A, given that B has already occured)

Do you still think that I must use what has happened already to use bayes.  I can tell that

you never even considered this, what else might have escaped your thought process.  I have

stated that I do not believe that probability is a law that governs anything and if it is then why

do you say that the lottery numbers cannot be predicted based on past drawings.  I am confused

it can't be both ways.

RL

RL,

I'm working on a response based on the Missouri Show Me 5 to be pasted here when finished.  In the meantime, so you don't think I'm stumped, or ignoring you, here are short answers to your first 3 questions:

------------

MO 5-36     (You mean 5-39, right?)

list A = total sets = 575757     C(39,5)

list B = total draws 658    (Whatever)

Which list  would you use to predict what would most likely occure in the next drawing.  ( Neither )

Which list would you use to build your filters   ( Neither )

which list would provide the most information   (The most info about the possible outcomes List A )

...

I'm certain the Jackpot set (of 5) would be in List A, only 0.1143% sure it would be in List B.

As for dealing with matching subsets of 2, 3, and 4...

Stay Tuned!

--Jimmy

P.S.  If you REALLY suspect there is reason to believe that some subset of the 39 balls is more likely to emerge from the machine than the others, I strongly urge you to contact MO State Officials and call for an investigation!

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: July 31, 2010, 12:26 am - IP Logged

RedToad doesn't like my posts, and he doesn't think they are appropriate in this Forum, Lottery Systems.  He told me that in this private message:

"Look if you want to have lottery discussion, why the <snip> don't you start a thread in the lottery discussion forum?

Who the <snip> are you?

You are paid statistican working for some State lottery."

(I didn't include this to get RedToad in trouble; the "<snip>"s are his, not mine.  And I wonder why during 4 years in the Navy, I never learned about snips? )

Well, RedToad, first of all, I am NOT working for a state lottery.  I work for ME.  Secondly, this thread was initiated by RL-RandomLogic, not RedToad, and RL has not made that request, perhaps because he knows we have a lot in common, and may eventually find a way to compromise.  Actually, for my next post I was planning to start a new thread myself, but here in Lottery Systems, not Discussions.  I just did a quick scan of the 400+ posts in this thread and there were comments on Random Number Generators, Logic and Probability long before I got here.  However, that said, if RL would prefer to continue this discussion of Systems to Predict Pick-5-6 Lotteries in a new Thread, I'll have no problem with his decision.

RedToad, you seem to have a lot of anger inside you.  I feel bad for you.

--Jimmy

 Page 27 of 46