I was planning to back-test and/or simulate ONE component of the "Digit System," namely the first filter applied which rejects all sets from the (5,39) matrix that have less than 5 or more than 6 unique digits.

No need to run a simulation to get those figures, it's part of my regular routine to pick parameters for my predictions. This is part of the results for Ohio Rolling Cash5(5/39) with 2236 drawings so far. I use 95% for my parameters. I can create a text file with all the information but I can only load 800 lines to sort and analyze. I would have to rewrite the program to use virtual memory since my programs are in GWBasic, which I may do sometime in the future or learn a new Basic and rewrite all my programs so they will work in Window7. Years ago when I wrote this program as a utility, 800 lines were plenty and still is for the other games I play. They have more than 800 total records but their latest matrix have less than 800 drawings.

Very nice post RJOH. Similiar to Texas 5/37 in 2720 draws:

2 digits = 1

3 digits = 54

4 digits = 501

5 digits = 1177

6 digit = 806

7 digits = 175

8 digits = 6

total from 4 to 7 = 2659/2720 = 97.757%

Overall the breakdown for a 5/37 game are:

2 = 18

3 = 3044

4 = 44970

5 = 157632

6 = 169287

7 = 56428

8 = 4518

This is where brain freeze occurs. I've said this to RL privately. This accounts for the why and how people dismiss Digit Systems in general. One has to quit looking at numbers and force themselves to see digits.

With RL's assistance and advice, I have proved this to myself.I know it works. Since March 5th, it has produced3 jackpot prizes in Texas. It is an exciting idea with a lot of promise if one takes the time to aquaint themselves with the basics and let the digits do the work.

It's like train meets baquette. Unless the conductor is hungry, that train won't stop rollin', it won't stop rollin' nohow!

mid-Ohio United States Member #9 March 24, 2001 19831 Posts Offline

Posted: April 8, 2011, 9:00 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by garyo1954 on April 8, 2011

Very nice post RJOH. Similiar to Texas 5/37 in 2720 draws:

2 digits = 1

3 digits = 54

4 digits = 501

5 digits = 1177

6 digit = 806

7 digits = 175

8 digits = 6

total from 4 to 7 = 2659/2720 = 97.757%

Overall the breakdown for a 5/37 game are:

2 = 18

3 = 3044

4 = 44970

5 = 157632

6 = 169287

7 = 56428

8 = 4518

This is where brain freeze occurs. I've said this to RL privately. This accounts for the why and how people dismiss Digit Systems in general. One has to quit looking at numbers and force themselves to see digits.

With RL's assistance and advice, I have proved this to myself.I know it works. Since March 5th, it has produced3 jackpot prizes in Texas. It is an exciting idea with a lot of promise if one takes the time to aquaint themselves with the basics and let the digits do the work.

It's like train meets baquette. Unless the conductor is hungry, that train won't stop rollin', it won't stop rollin' nohow!

This is where brain freeze occurs. I've said this to RL privately. This accounts for the why and how people dismiss Digit Systems in general. One has to quit looking at numbers and force themselves to see digits.

The problem I have with that is when you limit the number of digits to 5-6 you only cover 75% of the combinations which is fine if that's the only parameter you use but if you are limiting other parameters like sums, ranges, gaps between numbers and etc. the same amounts then you eliminate 50% or more of the potential winners. With the number of parameters I use, 95% works better for me because 5-10% of the combinations picked randomly are flagged for my final check and acceptances.

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

I was planning to back-test and/or simulate ONE component of the "Digit System," namely the first filter applied which rejects all sets from the (5,39) matrix that have less than 5 or more than 6 unique digits.

No need to run a simulation to get those figures, it's part of my regular routine to pick parameters for my predictions. This is part of the results for Ohio Rolling Cash5(5/39) with 2236 drawings so far. I use 95% for my parameters. I can create a text file with all the information but I can only load 800 lines to sort and analyze. I would have to rewrite the program to use virtual memory since my programs are in GWBasic, which I may do sometime in the future or learn a new Basic and rewrite all my programs so they will work in Window7. Years ago when I wrote this program as a utility, 800 lines were plenty and still is for the other games I play. They have more than 800 total records but their latest matrix have less than 800 drawings.

I'm sorry RJ, but when you say things like, "No need to run a simulation to get those figures, it's part of my regular routine to pick parameters for my predictions," it tells me we are not on the same page. You're talking in specifics about how you pick parameters for your predictions with a limited history and I'm talking about Monte Carlo Methods for back-testing or simulating systems over arbitrarily long periods of time.

It doesn't appear that you've spent much time with the references in my opening post. They're there for the groundwork required before moving on to talking about system specifics and modeling. If "there" is where I want to lead you, and "here" is where you are, I'm going to fall back on the old joke that people play on travelers asking them for directions - "You can't get there from here; you have to start from somewhere else."

United States Member #59354 March 13, 2008 3986 Posts Offline

Posted: April 8, 2011, 10:46 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on April 8, 2011

"There are those who come up with theories and systems and check them out and admit that they don't work, and then there are those who come up with theories and systems and if the results prove them wrong they ignore the results." Coin Toss

I think you're absolutely right Coin Toss. For these reasons I'm questioning whether it makes any sense for me to devote any more time to this. I was planning to back-test and/or simulate ONE component of the "Digit System," namely the first filter applied which rejects all sets from the (5,39) matrix that have less than 5 or more than 6 unique digits. The results showing that selecting from this reduced set of possibilities provides no statistically significant advantage to the player would probably be rejected for at least 3 reasons: one, the general distrust of the use of RNGs in the analysis, crucial to Monte Carlo Methods; two, the leap of faith required (for many) to see that the result was useful in isolation from the other filters applied in practise; and, of course, the missing "human element."

Another way to state your observation is to say, "Anyone who would accept the results of a Monte Carlo simulation didn't need to see it in the first place, and all those who need to see the results, would not accept them!"

What do you think of that dude putting up $30K to challenge betting systems?

JIMBO

Ive been waiting on your backtest since you started you fooled by random post. You now want to do a backtest

that involves using 5 or 6 digits. Wow, I could have posted these results before the first draw. When you come up

with a method that can match my ability making selections then test away. Lets say that I did play everyday and

I played 6 digits. 40% of the draws fall into this range so it would cost me $229,473 per day to play all the combos

or $83,757,645 dollars per year. Hmmmm. and 365 * .40 = 146 so 146 * $140,000 = 20,732,000 and $83,757,645

minus 20,732,000 equals $63,025,645 loss over the year just using six digits. Wow, gee wizz, amazing, wohoo.

Anyone who thinks in these terms has totaly missed it. My claims are based on my ability to predict and then play

only the days I can predict several of these. I can put as many or as few digits into play as I wish to use. You must

have read over the wild card post. Many days I play 8-9-10 digits but place limits on them I can set a digit to hit once

or I can set it to hit 5 or 6 times per set. I gues you misses watching the videos I posted showing the effectiveness

of placing limits on the digits in play. Just because I may select 4 digits and set 2 or 3 more giving them the option

to hit or miss which is beyound your ability to conceive my system. How stupid do you think I am. I hope it is not

nearly as stupid as I think your post are suggesting a backtest to prove something that has occured in the past.

Run all the test you want they mean nothing. I doubt all your claims as to what you have done in the past but I don't

hark on them as if it's the only way to feel important. I think it is high time to prove a few of your claims as to your

past experences, as your Jr high math does not attest to any of these in my opinion. You are either the side-step

queen of the universe or you just don't understand what is written. Selecting and using digits is not some magic

win every time you play system and I play on the days that I feel the data I have shows strong for the digits I play.

Once I make a setup I run the program without any filters and some days I end up with 2000+ lines and other days I

end up with as few as 20. I only play the days when both of these come togeather. My selections change every

day based on how I interpet the data. You missguided assumptions are useless and make you look foolish when

you claim something you don't understand. I told the pen and paper players who play maybe $5.00 in tickets to use

digit counts and totals that would put there play in the deepest end of the pool. Every set has the exact same

odds. Every number has the exact same odds. Digits don't, simple as that. Digits are way more likely to hit

within a much smaller window of time then the munbers, analyzing digits gives better results in my opinion then

any other method I have ever used hands down. Does this mean that using digits is a sure way to win, NO NO

NO NO. Do you understand what NO means. I know that my digit selections end in many more lower prizes over

using numbers. When you analyse numbers you can compare them to other numbers or how many days out or

any methods that you like but I analyse digits without regard for the numbers formed by these same digits.

Playing a lottery is a game and only a game. My attemps at playing have paid off for me without counting the

jackpot win. I hit a 5 of 5 sometimes a couple times a month. Do you see me out buying these tickets, no I

have a budget of around $500.00 a year for the lottery. Had I thought or known these days would have hit then

you bet I would have got the tickets. Sometimes I spend less then $500 per year and sometimes more based on my

winnings. You claim 11 x is unthinkable but I say that it runs closer to 17 to 23 and this is really not that hard to do.

Sorry you can't maybe you should try digits. I tell everyone to play on paper first because if you can't hit on paper

then you can't hit playing. Some do very well and some do not but I expected this from the start. The digit system

was posted so that those that arn't doing to well picking numbers would have something else to try. If it works for

them then use it if not then don't. I still say that if you want to tell people not to play then I would agree but for

those that want to take a chance and do this by picking there own numbers then try using digits. I got several PM's

from people who said they won some good amounts but did I ask them to prove it, NO. Self picks is all about trying

to predict which will hit before the draw and some of us feel better about or plays vs a quickpick. If you want to

Help people out then start a post about what the odds are in terms people can think about. Like how long would a

line of pennies be if you placed one for each powerball ticket side to side, over 2311 miles long. If you had a ticket

for each penny from just one mile it would you would have 47,520 pennies and the weight of them would be over 261

pounds. Most people can't lift 261 pounds and can't begin to afford to buy this many tickets which amounts to only

00024338146089045839884069297462512% of the total sets. I can say this for you, you sure know how to take the

safe side of things. I do have one question for you. How many wins counting all prizes would a person need to win

before it would change the overall stats enough to concern lottery officals.

When you say, "When you come up with a method that can match my ability making selections then test away," it's clear to me you have spent next to no time reviewing the references in my opening post to this Thread.

And really, do you still believe I would be interested in devoting any time to trying to design a selection system to beat chance in the lottery? Where have you been? What are you drinking tonight?

Denver, Co United States Member #103046 December 29, 2010 546 Posts Offline

Posted: April 9, 2011, 12:20 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by mayhem on April 9, 2011

Awesome.

P.S. I enjoy Jimmy's posts. Where else would I get such awesome signatures?

LOL, I think you'll find an abundance of Jimmy sigs there! Jimmy should be honored.

But seriously, it's a great thread, read the whole thing because as the thread progresses RL-Randomlogic gives a little more and little bit more and a little bit more info clarifying the system, plus there are many other great contributors there as well.

United States Member #93947 July 10, 2010 2180 Posts Offline

Posted: April 9, 2011, 12:57 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by RL-RANDOMLOGIC on April 9, 2011

Jimbo

I decided to take a shot at my own question.

Show me 5 FY2010

total sales = 26,700,000

based on 63.4% of ticket sales go to prizes

payouts = $16,927,800

* .1 = $1,692,780.00

* .01 = $169,278.00

*.001 = $16,927.80

*.0001 = $1,692.78

*.00001 = $169.28

RL

You're forgetting, you gave your software away to 40 disciples.

Aren't they up to speed yet?

BTW, based on an earlier remark of yours, you seem to be saying that after throwing out all the sets that don't have 5 or 6 unique digits, without further filtering, you would be forced to bet on all the thousands remaining.

So, are you then telling us that if one were to run a simulation that randomly generated (5,39) sets, rejecting all but 10 containing 5 or 6 unique digits, and playing them against the daily draw, that the result would NOT be any better than simply betting on the first 10 random sets produced? (QPs)

If your answer is NO, then I must assume this filter is no value.

If your answer is YES, I must ask why you would not support a simple backtest of this one component of your method.

United States Member #93947 July 10, 2010 2180 Posts Offline

Posted: April 9, 2011, 1:19 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by RL-RANDOMLOGIC on April 9, 2011

Jimbo

I decided to take a shot at my own question.

Show me 5 FY2010

total sales = 26,700,000

based on 63.4% of ticket sales go to prizes

payouts = $16,927,800

* .1 = $1,692,780.00

* .01 = $169,278.00

*.001 = $16,927.80

*.0001 = $1,692.78

*.00001 = $169.28

RL

CORRECTION!

I reversed my YES and NO below. Sorry.

----------Corrected Post----------------

You're forgetting, you gave your software away to 40 disciples.

Aren't they up to speed yet?

BTW, based on an earlier remark of yours, you seem to be saying that after throwing out all the sets that don't have 5 or 6 unique digits, without further filtering, you would be forced to bet on all the thousands remaining.

So, are you then telling us that if one were to run a simulation that randomly generated (5,39) sets, rejecting all but 10 containing 5 or 6 unique digits, and playing them against the daily draw, that the result would NOT be any better than simply betting on the first 10 random sets produced? (QPs)

If your answer is YES, then I must assume this filter is of no value.

If your answer is NO, I must ask why you would not support a simple backtest of this one component of your method.

United States Member #59354 March 13, 2008 3986 Posts Offline

Posted: April 9, 2011, 1:35 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on April 9, 2011

You're forgetting, you gave your software away to 40 disciples.

Aren't they up to speed yet?

BTW, based on an earlier remark of yours, you seem to be saying that after throwing out all the sets that don't have 5 or 6 unique digits, without further filtering, you would be forced to bet on all the thousands remaining.

So, are you then telling us that if one were to run a simulation that randomly generated (5,39) sets, rejecting all but 10 containing 5 or 6 unique digits, and playing them against the daily draw, that the result would NOT be any better than simply betting on the first 10 random sets produced? (QPs)

If your answer is NO, then I must assume this filter is no value.

If your answer is YES, I must ask why you would not support a simple backtest of this one component of your method.

Jimmy

You really do have a reading impairment don't you. Have you downloaded the video and watched it? I look

for data that I see as showing a good chance for a hit. When I find conflicting data I can allow one or both

to hit or miss. Lets say that I have 5 strong digits but see 2 others that could show in the next draw. I can

set them so that only one of them can hit within a set or both. I can set them to hit a maximun of once, twice

or any amount for that matter. I don't say that 5 digits will hit at the start. I choose the digits one at a time

and If I end up with 5 then I end up with 5. I may add a couple wild cards so to speak but I place limits on them

If I end up with seven then I will play 7 but I have another analysis that I can do to see what the odds for 7 digit

set is. If I see that 7 should not hit then I might take the two digits with the lowest chance of hitting and set them

to hit or miss but if they hit then they can only show once per set. This then gives me a range of 5 to 7 or 5 to 6

digit in play. I can control each digits count for every set that is produced. Most all my filters are digit related and

I calculate them thinking of the digits that are in play. If I select the correct digits then the software will produce

the exact winning set every time it is ran. Unless you can determind how I select the digits then you cannot do a

backtest unless you want to just make a guess. Since the software is mechanical in what it does and uses a numerical

set generator that goes through every set in the matrix each run then there is nothing to test unless you are looking

for errors in the code. How and what I select is based on so many bits of data that are calculated differently for each

draw and I may use different data for the same selection from draw to draw. Unless you are willing to spend the rest

of your life trying to code how I make decisions then your wasting time asking it. If it could be coded then I would have

done it. If you think you could do this with a simple program like you used in the P-3 analysis you nuts. I could code a

program to make those simple calculations in less then a hour and probably in less then 10 minuets. One of the guys

hit a 4 of 5 a week or so back. I don't keep in touch with all of them but they do contact me from time to time and let me

know how they are doing or maybe bragg a little. I take them at their word because they have nothing to gain. Many

use the program along with other software. DM has the ability to import sets from another program which can then be