United States Member #111943 June 6, 2011 9 Posts Offline

Posted: June 9, 2011, 2:14 am - IP Logged

I have been working on a Powerball system. One with some puzzling results.....

I have it designed to seek patterns in past drawings using both a matrix of all draws back to 1992 and another matrix going back only to Jan09 when they changed the active game matrix.

As we all know, prior to Jan09 the game matrix (I believe) was 5/56. Since Jan09 the game matrix is 5/59. Although the change is not huge...it is mathematically significant. Yet, I seem to get better results when considering the full matrix database than when only the more accurate database is referenced.

Logically this should not be the case. Does the sheer size of the skewed matrix outweigh the smaller but more accurate matrix?

Johnston, Iowa United States Member #80901 October 6, 2009 19 Posts Offline

Posted: June 23, 2011, 3:01 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Simon Templar on June 23, 2011

Well...right now I'm not even worrying about PB results (one thing at a time, you see).

Right now I'm playing strictly with WB draws.

....sT

Simon,

I do not blame you for just playing with the WB draws. You might want to use these top 10 powerballs since January 7th, 2009. 23,15,21,27,30,5,11,29,37 and 4. I say this only because you are already playing the Powerball Game.

Since Jan. 2007 the hottest powerballs overall are 36,7. In the past year 15. In the past 2 years 23. In the past 3 years 23. Hottest June PB is 6. Hottest PB in the past 3 years for June, is 6. Hottest PB drawn on day 25 is PB 23. The best prime PB overall is PB 23. Best prime PB number in the last year is PB 23. The hottest PB for Saturdays is PB 21.

Simon, you do not have to trust what I am sharing with you, yet I have the information right in front of me.

Johnston, Iowa United States Member #80901 October 6, 2009 19 Posts Offline

Posted: June 23, 2011, 4:04 pm - IP Logged

Simon,

I do not know how you play the game. Here is some good information. Since January 7th, 2009 there have been 257 draws for the powerball game and the white ball sums between 101 and 200 have hit 218 times. That is 84.8% of the time. The sums between 101 and 200 have hit every 1.2 games. That means that there are 4,109,105 combinations in the sum range of 101 to 200. There are 5,006,386 possible combinations for the powerball game. That is a reduction of 897,382 combinations. If you play with just those sums and also play with 3 odd and 2 even, or 2 odd and 3 even numbers, that will reduce the combinations to 2,647,764, which means that you have reduced the combinations down to at total of 2,358,622 combinations.

Now if you want to play with prime numbers, a prime number has been drawn 101 times since January 7th, 2009. Now that is 39.3% or every 2.5 draws, you will have reduced the overall odds down to 1 in 1,094,463.

Remember, I do not pick the numbers, you do. I can't say which main numbers will hit or which prime numbers will hit. It is easier to reduce the combinations down to 1 in 2,647,764 or 1 in 1,094,463 than it is to play with the entire 5,006,389 combinations. Either way, the odds are much better.

Johnston, Iowa United States Member #80901 October 6, 2009 19 Posts Offline

Posted: June 23, 2011, 4:29 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Simon Templar on June 9, 2011

I have been working on a Powerball system. One with some puzzling results.....

I have it designed to seek patterns in past drawings using both a matrix of all draws back to 1992 and another matrix going back only to Jan09 when they changed the active game matrix.

As we all know, prior to Jan09 the game matrix (I believe) was 5/56. Since Jan09 the game matrix is 5/59. Although the change is not huge...it is mathematically significant. Yet, I seem to get better results when considering the full matrix database than when only the more accurate database is referenced.

Logically this should not be the case. Does the sheer size of the skewed matrix outweigh the smaller but more accurate matrix?

Discuss

....sT

Simon,

I know that you have a system designed, that goes all the way back to 1992. The entire matrix of the game was changed in 2009. When they changed the matrix, they changed the whole game. Just a question here. Why do you want to play with 2 matrixs? Correct me if I am wrong. The new numbers, they never played in the old matrix. When they introduced the new numbers, they created a new matrix, yes or no. How is it then, that since the old matrix and the new matrix never played together, can they be tracked, due to the fact that the new matrix, never went back beyond January of 2009. Maybe you do better in the old matrix compared to the new matrix, due to there not being enough historical information in the new matrix. How can you track the 1 ball and the "59" ball, since the 59 ball was only introduced in 2009, all the way back to 1992, when they did not start playing together until 2009?

United States Member #111943 June 6, 2011 9 Posts Offline

Posted: June 23, 2011, 5:11 pm - IP Logged

Thanks for all of the input, guys. It IS appreciated. However, I think the actual question (or at least the spirit of it) has gotten lost.

It is not that I WANT to track the two matrices, merely that if I give it the entire 19 years worth it will track it as though it is one matrix (obvious, right?)

To be sure, the most accurate pool of draws is the post-Jan09. No question about that. Logically, that should be the only choice as using the larger, combined, pool would skew things away from the last three balls. The smaller pool has it's own problems as it has a very limited size.

So...there are two options:

Option 1: Use the post-Jan09 pool. Accurate...but induces certain errors in prediction due to its' own meager size.

Option 2: Use the larger total pool. 10x the size of the smaller pool....but induces errors due to it being skewed away from the last three WB.

Logically....as our friend Cobalt points out....in '09 when they changed things, they produced a compleatly different matrix. Therefore, the mere idea of using the older larger pool of numbers should be a ludicrous idea.

However, I am finding that although the larger pool is skewed, it appears to yet produce better predictions. Illogical...but appears to be a repeatable fact.

The question therefore, is the error produced by a much larger but slightly skewed pool of numbers less than the error produced by a pool of limited size but absolutely accurate information?

The answer seems obvious...yet I am finding the opposite to be true thus far.

Texas United States Member #55889 October 23, 2007 5611 Posts Offline

Posted: June 23, 2011, 5:32 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Simon Templar on June 23, 2011

Thanks for all of the input, guys. It IS appreciated. However, I think the actual question (or at least the spirit of it) has gotten lost.

It is not that I WANT to track the two matrices, merely that if I give it the entire 19 years worth it will track it as though it is one matrix (obvious, right?)

To be sure, the most accurate pool of draws is the post-Jan09. No question about that. Logically, that should be the only choice as using the larger, combined, pool would skew things away from the last three balls. The smaller pool has it's own problems as it has a very limited size.

So...there are two options:

Option 1: Use the post-Jan09 pool. Accurate...but induces certain errors in prediction due to its' own meager size.

Option 2: Use the larger total pool. 10x the size of the smaller pool....but induces errors due to it being skewed away from the last three WB.

Logically....as our friend Cobalt points out....in '09 when they changed things, they produced a compleatly different matrix. Therefore, the mere idea of using the older larger pool of numbers should be a ludicrous idea.

However, I am finding that although the larger pool is skewed, it appears to yet produce better predictions. Illogical...but appears to be a repeatable fact.

The question therefore, is the error produced by a much larger but slightly skewed pool of numbers less than the error produced by a pool of limited size but absolutely accurate information?

The answer seems obvious...yet I am finding the opposite to be true thus far.

...sT

Explain what the "better predictions" are. Are you hitting 1 number every drawing, 2 numbers, are you winning money on a regular basis?

South Carolina United States Member #6 November 4, 2001 8790 Posts Offline

Posted: June 23, 2011, 5:54 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Simon Templar on June 9, 2011

I have been working on a Powerball system. One with some puzzling results.....

I have it designed to seek patterns in past drawings using both a matrix of all draws back to 1992 and another matrix going back only to Jan09 when they changed the active game matrix.

As we all know, prior to Jan09 the game matrix (I believe) was 5/56. Since Jan09 the game matrix is 5/59. Although the change is not huge...it is mathematically significant. Yet, I seem to get better results when considering the full matrix database than when only the more accurate database is referenced.

Logically this should not be the case. Does the sheer size of the skewed matrix outweigh the smaller but more accurate matrix?

Discuss

....sT

"As we all know, prior to Jan09 the game matrix (I believe) was 5/56. Since Jan09 the game matrix is 5/59. Although the change is not huge...it is mathematically significant"

It may have added to the amount of combinations possible by adding 3 balls.

But adding the 3 balls gives the total added possibility of about 6% of one or more of those 3 balls being drawn over the previous matrix of 56 balls.

Still give you 94% possibility of the drawn numbers being among the previous 56 ball matrix.

United States Member #41383 June 16, 2006 1969 Posts Offline

Posted: June 26, 2011, 5:47 pm - IP Logged

The *ONLY* thing looking at prior matrixes does for me is when I need a little nudge, or help making a choice.

And by that I mean, for example, let's say TWO longshot numbers have hit in-a-row, what usually happens next?

Let's say three numbers from one goup hit, such as 12-15-19: what usually happens in the subsequent game?

Let's say the PB repeats (such as #12 right now), what usually hits next, a longshot, one that has hit in the last 10, or 20, or 30 games? An odd number or an even one? A number on the other end of the dial?

Two odd 50's have hit in a row, what usually happens next? Another 50? Odd? Even?

No, you CANNOT COUNT on any of the above, but if you are 'stuck', I suppose you could do worse.

United States Member #105312 January 29, 2011 435 Posts Offline

Posted: June 28, 2011, 8:17 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Simon Templar on June 23, 2011

Thanks for all of the input, guys. It IS appreciated. However, I think the actual question (or at least the spirit of it) has gotten lost.

It is not that I WANT to track the two matrices, merely that if I give it the entire 19 years worth it will track it as though it is one matrix (obvious, right?)

To be sure, the most accurate pool of draws is the post-Jan09. No question about that. Logically, that should be the only choice as using the larger, combined, pool would skew things away from the last three balls. The smaller pool has it's own problems as it has a very limited size.

So...there are two options:

Option 1: Use the post-Jan09 pool. Accurate...but induces certain errors in prediction due to its' own meager size.

Option 2: Use the larger total pool. 10x the size of the smaller pool....but induces errors due to it being skewed away from the last three WB.

Logically....as our friend Cobalt points out....in '09 when they changed things, they produced a compleatly different matrix. Therefore, the mere idea of using the older larger pool of numbers should be a ludicrous idea.

However, I am finding that although the larger pool is skewed, it appears to yet produce better predictions. Illogical...but appears to be a repeatable fact.

The question therefore, is the error produced by a much larger but slightly skewed pool of numbers less than the error produced by a pool of limited size but absolutely accurate information?

The answer seems obvious...yet I am finding the opposite to be true thus far.

...sT

Simon: Jap69 might be right, probably is if you continue testing and your results continue in the same general pattern. Maybe the larger database trumps the shorter one on a different matrix.

On the other hand, whatever the reason might be, if you get a consistent set of results better by one method than the other you're probably better off trusting your eyes than you are trusting logic. If logic helped win lotteries all the people posting here who have all the answers would be diving around in a swimming pool filled with money like Scrooge McDuck.

What those numbers do, have done, and will do in the future all tends to wander around on the other side of the fence from the boundaries of logic. You don't need to understand why they do what they do, provided you know what they did and it helps you to understand what they're going to do.

Which nobody admits to knowing if anyone knows it.

Validation: All statements made above are accurate, precise, lucid and sometimes supported by factoids written down somewhere.