Backing into combinations for double digit drawsPrev TopicNext Topic

• JosephusMinimus

  

  United States
  Member #105,307
  January 29, 2011
  474 Posts
  Offline
  Apr 7, 2011, 9:04 pm

  ▲▼

  I'm about to be taking a break from posting on the forums for a while but I wanted to toss this out to give it an opportunity for some discussion if anyone's interested.

  While individual numbers don't show a lot of variety in frequency of hits when taken across multiple lotteries and tens of thousands of draws, combinations are an entirely different matter.  Unfortunately, from the top the frequency percentages of combinations is jam packed.  But from the bottom the percentages take on an entirely different look.  For instance, a 5, 34 combination stands an equally good chance based on histories, to hit with 44, or 32, or 52 or 12.  1.29%.

  But over tens of thousands of draws a 31, 15 or 53 stands an almost 30% less likelihood of hitting with a 5, 34 combination than those mentioned above.

  With a 5, 27, 34 combination the greatest likelihood for the next number is an 11, 12, 24 or 42.  1.41% for each.

  But on the bottom end 28, 52, 20 and 31 range from 45% to 50% less chance of hitting with a 5, 27, 34 combination.

  And so on.  Easy enough to check for yourself using draw histories and as many draws as possible of as many lotteries as possible.

  Backing into picking numbers to avoid the least likely ones to hit with the rest of your picks might be something worth trying.

  But, of course, I'm not a statistician, so I'm probably all wrong.
• RL-RANDOMLOGIC

  United States
  Member #59,352
  March 13, 2008
  5,626 Posts
  Offline
  Apr 14, 2011, 1:17 am

  ▲▼

  Josephus

  I have a couple old programs that date back to when I still used numbers.  The first uses the 5 numbers from

  the current draw and goes through the entire history and every time it finds a draw with one of the numbers

  it records the numbers that hit in the next draw. The end process totals all the information giving you what has

  hit most often after the numbers from the current draw. 

  I have a second program that does the same thing but uses every pairing of numbers from the current draw. 

  The Wife still likes to look at this data and many days can pick a 2 of 5 on one line.  Me and another LP member

  were playing the PA5-30 game and each day my wife used these programs and would give us her top picks

  and she would hit at least a 2 of 5 and a couple times hit a 3 of 5's on one line.  It works better for some games

  then others but kind of touches on what you said above.   

  RL
• JosephusMinimus

  

  United States
  Member #105,307
  January 29, 2011
  474 Posts
  Offline
  Apr 14, 2011, 7:44 am

  ▲▼
  In response to RL-RANDOMLOGIC

  Quote: Originally posted by RL-RANDOMLOGIC on Apr 14, 2011

  Josephus

  I have a couple old programs that date back to when I still used numbers.  The first uses the 5 numbers from

  the current draw and goes through the entire history and every time it finds a draw with one of the numbers

  it records the numbers that hit in the next draw. The end process totals all the information giving you what has

  hit most often after the numbers from the current draw. 

  I have a second program that does the same thing but uses every pairing of numbers from the current draw. 

  The Wife still likes to look at this data and many days can pick a 2 of 5 on one line.  Me and another LP member

  were playing the PA5-30 game and each day my wife used these programs and would give us her top picks

  and she would hit at least a 2 of 5 and a couple times hit a 3 of 5's on one line.  It works better for some games

  then others but kind of touches on what you said above.   

  RL

  Hi RL:  I'd noticed what you're talking about a few years ago myself and found similar results to what you and your wife found, though I never used any program other than EXCEL and it was a cumbersome process.  It's something I always keep in mind when I'm mulling over other aspects and possible directions to explore.  Keeping it as a single process doesn't appear to lead anywhere helpful, but combined with other generalities and treated as a piece of a larger whole it might. 

  I take the view that when something recurs more-or-less consistently it's probably part of some greater whole, even if we don't understand what whole that might be and even if what it appears to imply requires abandoning some other concepts I'd previously accepted as true.  If something happens frequently enough and consistently enough I usually accept it as evidence of something, even if I don't know what that something might be.
• JosephusMinimus

  

  United States
  Member #105,307
  January 29, 2011
  474 Posts
  Offline
  May 7, 2011, 7:30 am

  ▲▼

  Here's a link to an EXCEL file download with some sort/filtering attributes that seems to line them up fairly well

  http://db.tt/TFBGsez