mid-Ohio United States Member #9 March 24, 2001 19821 Posts Online

Posted: November 23, 2011, 6:12 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by mayhem on November 22, 2011

You're right, the odds that someone would actually post a strategy that is making them a lot of money is probably greater than just winning the lottery itself. After all, people win the lottery every day, but a winning strategy that can stand up to historical analysis is non-existant.

That said, it doesn't mean that the winning strategy hasn't been posted. There is always some truth to any failed system. You just have to take bits and pieces of all the systems and put them together in a coherent matter.

There is always some truth to any failed system. You just have to take bits and pieces of all the systems and put them together in a coherent matter.

Are you suggesting combining the best parts of failed systems is the way to come up with a successful one?

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

Use Mirror #'s Use prs. with your Key* numbers the most Vivid thing in your dream go up or down on #'s. Flip 6=9 `9=6 Bullseyes 0 or 1 for Pick 4 and the P. 5 Play the other part of doubles. Do the Whole nine yards for a P. 4* P. 5* or 0 thur 9 for P. 4 P. 5 from my dreams or hunches good Luck.. Write your Dreams down Play for 3 days. Good Luck All.

Identifying interesting relationships between pairs of variables in large data sets is increasingly important. Here, we present a measure of dependence for two-variable relationships: the maximal information coefficient (MIC). MIC captures a wide range of associations both functional and not, and for functional relationships provides a score that roughly equals the coefficient of determination (R^{2}) of the data relative to the regression function. MIC belongs to a larger class of maximal information-based nonparametric exploration (MINE) statistics for identifying and classifying relationships. We apply MIC and MINE to data sets in global health, gene expression, major-league baseball, and the human gut microbiota and identify known and novel relationships.

You are a slave to the choices you have made. jk

Even a blind squirrel will occasioanlly find an acorn.

Identifying interesting relationships between pairs of variables in large data sets is increasingly important. Here, we present a measure of dependence for two-variable relationships: the maximal information coefficient (MIC). MIC captures a wide range of associations both functional and not, and for functional relationships provides a score that roughly equals the coefficient of determination (R^{2}) of the data relative to the regression function. MIC belongs to a larger class of maximal information-based nonparametric exploration (MINE) statistics for identifying and classifying relationships. We apply MIC and MINE to data sets in global health, gene expression, major-league baseball, and the human gut microbiota and identify known and novel relationships.

Identifying interesting relationships between pairs of variables in large data sets is increasingly important. Here, we present a measure of dependence for two-variable relationships: the maximal information coefficient (MIC). MIC captures a wide range of associations both functional and not, and for functional relationships provides a score that roughly equals the coefficient of determination (R^{2}) of the data relative to the regression function. MIC belongs to a larger class of maximal information-based nonparametric exploration (MINE) statistics for identifying and classifying relationships. We apply MIC and MINE to data sets in global health, gene expression, major-league baseball, and the human gut microbiota and identify known and novel relationships.

Hi,

I answered my own question. *L* If you are interested, go to the link below.

Stone Mountain*Georgia United States Member #828 November 2, 2002 10491 Posts Offline

Posted: December 18, 2011, 10:16 am - IP Logged

Thank you for your effort to share JKING......it is appreciated. I enjoyed the parts that I could understand. Looking back .......I wish I hadn't majored in just Philosophy.

I should have know back then something was wrong on college career day.......and none of the big Philosophy companies showed up. LOL

The only real failure .....is the failure to try.

Luck is a very rare thing....... Odds not so much.

long beach, Cali United States Member #120001 December 7, 2011 64 Posts Offline

Posted: December 21, 2011, 7:24 pm - IP Logged

I really really dont believe that math can beat the lottery. The Numbers do funny things in the lottery. Somtimes they show up in the next drawing. or sometimes they dont show up for 45 days. You never know. I really dont think math can beat the lottery there really isnt a solution or math problem that can pinpoint an exact number that will show up. Even Statiscians can be fooled.

mid-Ohio United States Member #9 March 24, 2001 19821 Posts Online

Posted: December 29, 2011, 1:58 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by dmiller88 on December 21, 2011

I really really dont believe that math can beat the lottery. The Numbers do funny things in the lottery. Somtimes they show up in the next drawing. or sometimes they dont show up for 45 days. You never know. I really dont think math can beat the lottery there really isnt a solution or math problem that can pinpoint an exact number that will show up. Even Statiscians can be fooled.

You're probably right and you don't have to prove it because the odds of anyone ever proving you wrong are probably the same as their odds of ever winning a lottery jackpot.

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

Tahiti- Polynesia Tuvalu Member #34524 March 4, 2006 54 Posts Offline

Posted: January 8, 2012, 12:12 am - IP Logged

I don't think that you can beat the lottery with any mathematical formula.The lotto would have been cracked for a long time now by all those those maths genius.

I do however think that you can use mathematics as a tool to have better results. The secret is not in mathematics; the secret is about how you think the lotto.

NASHVILLE, TENN United States Member #33372 February 20, 2006 1044 Posts Offline

Posted: January 14, 2012, 3:00 am - IP Logged

When discussing random, there is no way to prove anything. Random means random, pure and simple. We lotto players don't let that fact stand in our way. We move on and make statements. Allow me to make a statement disguised as fact.

Math will never produce a winning combination consistently. Math might provide someone a jackpot somewhere but that would be a fluke and nothing else. He who used math to get that one jackpot will never be able to repeat his feat.

I believe RL has the right approach. Study the patterns and then make your choices. You will be wrong most of the time; you will be right sometimes. If your right choices keep you profitable, then you have something to work with. If not, keep studying, keep choosing, keep on keeping on.

We will need another form of math, one which has not been invented (developed?) yet. Before Isacc Newton, there was no such thing as calculus. After Newton, several different aspects of calculus has been developed. The same senario is going on here, at Lottery Post. We are muddling about in a dense fog, looking for that Yellow Brick Road. We may never find it but that should not prevent us from looking, from thinking, from trying.

I will get off my soapbox now. Thanks for listening. (Or should that be, "Thanks for reading"?)

bgonÃ§alves Brasil Member #92564 June 9, 2010 2122 Posts Offline

Posted: January 14, 2012, 7:42 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by GASMETERGUY on January 14, 2012

When discussing random, there is no way to prove anything. Random means random, pure and simple. We lotto players don't let that fact stand in our way. We move on and make statements. Allow me to make a statement disguised as fact.

Math will never produce a winning combination consistently. Math might provide someone a jackpot somewhere but that would be a fluke and nothing else. He who used math to get that one jackpot will never be able to repeat his feat.

I believe RL has the right approach. Study the patterns and then make your choices. You will be wrong most of the time; you will be right sometimes. If your right choices keep you profitable, then you have something to work with. If not, keep studying, keep choosing, keep on keeping on.

We will need another form of math, one which has not been invented (developed?) yet. Before Isacc Newton, there was no such thing as calculus. After Newton, several different aspects of calculus has been developed. The same senario is going on here, at Lottery Post. We are muddling about in a dense fog, looking for that Yellow Brick Road. We may never find it but that should not prevent us from looking, from thinking, from trying.

I will get off my soapbox now. Thanks for listening. (Or should that be, "Thanks for reading"?)

Hello,gasmu, yesyou canuse mathematicsto some extentin 100%example,alotto49 / 6can be expected3 to 4numbers withmuch confidencewhen itunfolds insuchpositionsif4=1,2,3,4,1,2,3,53,4,5,6untilboth thefront of thenumberofdigitsfrom 0 to 4,as thefinaldigitfrom 0 to 9, thengasmu,trios, andblocks, it is easypredictthemissing numbersarerandom, thenmathis60% to70% Andalaetorioelse tocomplete the bet,so dogasmucan seevarious bets Sweepstakesand play until10, you will seethat the frequencyfrom 3 to 4hits isvery frequent, Concordiawith youallalotterynumcawepredict, butratherhal

"The math is there somewhere...who is clever enough to find it? *S*"

If it exists, only someone who is looking will ever have a chance of finding it.

I like this post .... Of course the math is there (in standard probability and statistics) .... and, of course, lotteries can be won using math. For example, in a pick 6 Lottery with 53 numbers, each number tends to show up, on average, about once a month in a 9 draws per month lottery (53/6=9). Competently run lotteries work very hard to minimize the deviation any one number has from this normal monthly rate.

In any given 18 draws, almost all the numbers will show at least once, and, if you look at the count of hits for each number over 104 lotteries (52 weeks * 2), you will predictably see a very nice bell curve with the peak between 11 and 12 (numbers hitting about once a month).

That is to say ... More numbers hit an average number of times than less than average or greater than average, and the probability that a number in a list will hit is exactly proportional to the size of the list divided by the total number of possibilities for the list.

Examples:

It is almost equally probably that a given lottery draw number will be even or odd (there's 1 more odd number). It is also most probable that a given draw will have 3 even numbers and 3 odd numbers, less likely 4-2 or 2-4, less likely 1-5 or 5-1 and even less likely all even or all odd.

Numbers that occur early in a history list are more probable than those that occur later.

Numbers that have occurred 0 or 1 times in 9 lotteries are a lot more probable than numbers that have occurred more than 1 time. (The hotter a number, the less likely to hit.)

To win a lottery once in a while, you don't have to hold every possibility. You only have to hold enough of the tops of the probability curves to equal the percentage of times you'd like to win; and have deep enough pockets to stay with it.

Tahiti- Polynesia Tuvalu Member #34524 March 4, 2006 54 Posts Offline

Posted: January 17, 2012, 10:50 pm - IP Logged

Please, what language are you speaking on this thread? Very very difficult to understand. That's arab for me. Better give documented examples. I don't really need this sytem as I have a better one but Dr san theory about pareto law used for lottery is interesting. Just need clear examples. That's the kind of maths theory to use to have better results.

Taunton, Ma United States Member #123005 February 11, 2012 136 Posts Offline

Posted: February 11, 2012, 9:09 pm - IP Logged

I beleive that it is POSSIBLE to predict outcomes with mathematics. Weather such math exists now is unknown. However, everything in this universe can be explained by mathematics. Math is the universal language of the cosmos. It explains the past and predicts the future. Every single atom and every single action can be defined in math. However, if the numbers are truly random and not simply a pattern-based algorithim then predicting them is equivalent to predicting any other future outcome. In which case the math exists to predict some things but not everything. If we can finally unify quantum physics and general relativity, we should at that point be able to predict ANYTHING. When this happens, the lotto will be moot.