- Home
- Premium Memberships
- Lottery Results
- Forums
- Predictions
- Lottery Post Videos
- News
- Search Drawings
- Search Lottery Post
- Lottery Systems
- Lottery Charts
- Lottery Wheels
- Worldwide Jackpots
- Quick Picks
- On This Day in History
- Blogs
- Online Games
- Premium Features
- Contact Us
- Whitelist Lottery Post
- Rules
- Lottery Book Store
- Lottery Post Gift Shop
The time is now 9:45 pm
You last visited
April 28, 2024, 9:28 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)
Mathematics and the LotteryPrev TopicNext Topic
Can a winning lottery system be created with existing math formulas?
-
Quote: Originally posted by aquariuslottery on Dec 31, 2016
There are a lot of things in this world that once were considered impossible. Beating the lottery with a system may or may not be one of them.
This may largely depend on the definition of "beating" the lottery. For some it will be jackpot only, for others occasional lesser prizes will do; for me breaking even or above would be a good reason for satisfaction.
Isn't it amazing, with all the analysis tools (hot/cold, skip....etc.) that nobody can triangulate wins in a somewhat consistent manner.
The problem with all numeric random lotteries is that nothing in them is consistent - they fluctuate constantly. Identifying patterns (I call them short term trends) in these fluctuations is, I believe, the only realistic way to win. These patterns will not last for very long. For that very reason you cannot use only one prediction method for picking winners. Apart from your favorite Method A you HAVE to have Methods B, C, and probably several others.
That leads me to believe that there are plenty of elements out there (probably twenty or thirty of them) to develop a winning system.
Actually, I believe, there are only 4 such elements (and they were tested in real play):
- Statistics based on the past draws, particularly the most recent ones.
- Predictions based on statistics.
- Wheels.
- Backtracks.
All this stuff has to be computerized, there is no room for manual computations for 2 reasons: they are slow and easily subjected to undetected errors which may screw up results for weeks or even months and this cannot be allowed because it may also cost big money. For the same reason spreadsheet workouts must also be excluded.
While most people in LP appreciate the value of backtracks, what amazes me is how little attention is given to wheeling. Wheeling is necessary for all random numeric lotteries and absolutely ESSENTIAL for jackpot lotteries. I won't bother with any lottery if I don't have wheels for it. Either I will get them or develop my own (the latter being my preferred choice). LP has wheels and I wonder how many people use them. Probably not many.
You are wise to look at all systems at the LP with a very critical eye.
And not only these. If you want to use a commercial package apply the same principle. Particularly to their prediction methods. If the software does nor explain HOW it makes predictions (so you can verify them manually) it's SFFS (Secret Formula For Suckers).
Just one persons opinion. *S*
Just another persons opinion. No *BS*
In my humble opinion, lottery workouts where choices are based on some mathematical model are destined to fail.
I realize this is a controversial view, but please consider the following.
Reality.
1. 10 ping pong balls are placed in an enclosed vessel and mixed via compressed air.
2. The balls are numbered 0 to 9.
3. The balls are not self-aware. They don't know their individual numbers, cannot perform any kind of mathematical function, have no memory and don't know who their neighbors are.
We, as the human element, know the vessel has a gate and that one of the balls will eventually escape and become as winning integer.
We also know that no two balls can occupy the same space at the same time.
We know the digits/numbers painted on the balls and we can use that information to create and update any mechanical or electronic record system. In other words, a precise mathematical-based inventory that we can examine at our leisure.
Question - which Ball will escape the chaos in the next drawing?
Let's say, for example, that our analysis of the inventory reveals that the Ball 1 made it through the exit gate more often, for a given period of time, than any of the other balls.
Does this mean Ball 1 will be the next winning integer??
Probably not!
The obvious answer is that the next Ball to escape will be the one nearest the gate when it opens. In other words, we won't know the next Ball until we know it.
Many lottery gamblers believe the next Ball can be known or predicted via mathematics.
Question - How do you quantify 'chance'?
True, there might be some higher mathematical formulae MIT graduates might apply.
This, of course, would probably mean a gambler would have to invest more money than the average player can afford.
What are the alternatives?
My answer is:
1. Use the power of substitution to break the game into smaller portions, construct tracking charts with definite rules of procedure, and rely on intellect to choose the best possibilities.
True, this means taking personal responsibility for choices made, something that seems to be lacking these days.
Seems most gamblers want to push a few buttons on their smart phones and computers and get instant winners!!
Winning is hard.
Our success depends on our ability to establish and evaluate TRENDS.
How do you do that??
I have a method that works, now and then.
Unfortunately, a description requires presentation of multiple tracking charts, and I don't have the time or interest in doing that in a public forum.
My point is - mathematics generates is good at generating statistical charts, but is worthless when it comes time to choose and play the digits having the best chance of winning.
Happy New Year!!! -
Quote: Originally posted by bobby623 on Dec 31, 2016
In my humble opinion, lottery workouts where choices are based on some mathematical model are destined to fail.
I realize this is a controversial view, but please consider the following.
Reality.
1. 10 ping pong balls are placed in an enclosed vessel and mixed via compressed air.
2. The balls are numbered 0 to 9.
3. The balls are not self-aware. They don't know their individual numbers, cannot perform any kind of mathematical function, have no memory and don't know who their neighbors are.
We, as the human element, know the vessel has a gate and that one of the balls will eventually escape and become as winning integer.
We also know that no two balls can occupy the same space at the same time.
We know the digits/numbers painted on the balls and we can use that information to create and update any mechanical or electronic record system. In other words, a precise mathematical-based inventory that we can examine at our leisure.
Question - which Ball will escape the chaos in the next drawing?
Let's say, for example, that our analysis of the inventory reveals that the Ball 1 made it through the exit gate more often, for a given period of time, than any of the other balls.
Does this mean Ball 1 will be the next winning integer??
Probably not!
The obvious answer is that the next Ball to escape will be the one nearest the gate when it opens. In other words, we won't know the next Ball until we know it.
Many lottery gamblers believe the next Ball can be known or predicted via mathematics.
Question - How do you quantify 'chance'?
True, there might be some higher mathematical formulae MIT graduates might apply.
This, of course, would probably mean a gambler would have to invest more money than the average player can afford.
What are the alternatives?
My answer is:
1. Use the power of substitution to break the game into smaller portions, construct tracking charts with definite rules of procedure, and rely on intellect to choose the best possibilities.
True, this means taking personal responsibility for choices made, something that seems to be lacking these days.
Seems most gamblers want to push a few buttons on their smart phones and computers and get instant winners!!
Winning is hard.
Our success depends on our ability to establish and evaluate TRENDS.
How do you do that??
I have a method that works, now and then.
Unfortunately, a description requires presentation of multiple tracking charts, and I don't have the time or interest in doing that in a public forum.
My point is - mathematics generates is good at generating statistical charts, but is worthless when it comes time to choose and play the digits having the best chance of winning.
Happy New Year!!!Happy New Year to you and all others in LP as well.
With all the due respect I agree with you that your point of view is controversial and often goes against tangible evidence.
1. Randomness.
It is indisputable dogma that numbers in numeric lotteries are randomly selected. Cannot argue that point. But it is also indisputable that there are significant deviations in this randomness in short spans of time. I'm glad that you mentioned Pick 3 as an example because I have some fresh evidence regarding this lottery, which is applicable to other numeric lotteries as well.
Below is a hypothetical scenario and not based on real numbers but I've seen it happen in real life.
Pick 3 frequency chart for the latest 20 draws:
Number 3 hit 9 times.
Number 6 - 3 times only.
Why not all of them 6 as should be? Clear evidence of deviations (or trends) in true random selection. All lotteries have such deviations.
But I'm stating the fact after it happened. Perfectly true. But number 3 did not end up on top of the chart in one day and number 6 nosedived to the bottom in one day, either. It took them some time to reach their respective levels of popularity. And this opens the window to measurements. You can measure the number performance from day to day and make your picks. I use that option, among several others.
2. Mathematical formulas fallibility.
No mathematical formula will succeed continuously in any lottery. On this point I agree with you perfectly because it is a documented fact. However, who says that you must use only one? Monitor several and pick the best performer at any given time. Backtracking is essential, in my creed - don't play without it.
From what I could observe in LP discussions regarding mathematics for lotteries is that the great majority of people concentrate exclusively on the output from the formulas: put some numbers in the formula and let it spit out either the direct winners or a narrow range of values with winners mixed among them. That's a formidable task to achieve due to the shear odds stacked against you, which in jackpot lotteries easily run into tens on millions. So you have to filter, divide, subtract etc. huge number of combinations to make the play manageable - usually ridding of potential winners as well. For me this is a dead end.
But mathematical formulas, apart from the output end, also have the input one - the range of numbers you put in them. So the question arises if you really have to consider all the numbers from a given lottery, in our example - 10 in Pick 3. And the answer is a definite NO.
The logic behind this is very simple and I apologize for asking such a dumb question but bear with me for a moment: what is easier to manage: 49 numbers in Canadian Lotto 6/49 (input) or 12+ mln combinations that it requires to win a jackpot? For me it's a no-brainer at all and I never bothered analyse the output end. Instead, I always focused on input; and I did play this lottery for real.
So how do you control the input end? Wheeling is the answer and it is a big subject in itself. Wheels allow you to not only reduce the pool of numbers used for play but at the same time hugely reduce the output from a formula - without eliminating the potential winners. And that's a different ball game.
My point is - mathematics generates is good at generating statistical charts, but is worthless when it comes time to choose and play the digits having the best chance of winning.
This is a point in which we differ completely as I strongly believe that statistics CAN be used successfully for predicting winners, and are the only ones I would ever use. And backtracking is essential for any formula you apply because fluctuations in their performance could be wild.
3. Supporting evidence.
For almost 8 weeks I've been running a simulation for Wisconsin Pick 3. I don't play it because I don't live in Wisconsin, and the choice of this lottery was random. I'm testing the capacity of the system I've implemented and thus gaining a practical experience. The system implements all the principles I spelled out in my previous post. And the results are quite interesting.
First, it confirms that no single prediction formula will succeed for more than a week. So far every week a different formula was a best performer. A good argument against those who advocate "pick once, play many days" strategies. According the the sim results such a strategy is a looser.
Secondly, I don't bother to control the output (1000 combos in Pick 3). I control the input (10 numbers in Pick 3). I use different statistical methods but none of them will select more than 8 numbers (from the pool of 10). And these numbers are always wheeled - in this case for box, which gives 56 unique combinations that contain a winner if you hit 3 in 8 in any sequence (which turns out not to be so difficult).
8 numbers out of 10 is 80%, if my math skills do not fool me. In Pick 3 we draw 3 numbers (for a single) so each position, in my prediction, in order to win, must contain a number from 0 to 7, or I lost. These are the odds: 8x8x8/10x10x10 which computes to 51.2%. For doubles it's 64% as only 2 numbers are counted. So, does it come as a surprise that the best performers every week, at least so far, had 5-6 wins every week? Actually, it does, as I did not expect such results. Is it sustainable? Only time can tell. And that's the input end results.
How about the output end? Hypothetically, let's say I selected the date-based pyramid (I'm joking, of course, I would never play something like this) and it gave me 120 combos which I shrunk, using various filters, to the same 56 combos. Among 1000 possible combos it's what? - 5.6%. I'm not a statistician or mathematician but it doesn't seem like it's even a close contest.
That's the verbal proof and I myself consider it unsatisfactory. But I have a pictorial as well. I cannot post the pictures directly in LP but you can view them on Pinterest under the name Lotterix on the pin board Pick 3 lottery.
Not long ago somebody groaned in LP that Pick 3 is so hard to win. It isn't - it's the easiest to win lottery I ever ran across. My advice - just watch how you are playing. It may make huge difference.
Happy New Year to all again - let the jackpot be yours.
......
-
Quote: Originally posted by aquariuslottery on Dec 31, 2016
Happy New Year to you and all others in LP as well.
With all the due respect I agree with you that your point of view is controversial and often goes against tangible evidence.
1. Randomness.
It is indisputable dogma that numbers in numeric lotteries are randomly selected. Cannot argue that point. But it is also indisputable that there are significant deviations in this randomness in short spans of time. I'm glad that you mentioned Pick 3 as an example because I have some fresh evidence regarding this lottery, which is applicable to other numeric lotteries as well.
Below is a hypothetical scenario and not based on real numbers but I've seen it happen in real life.
Pick 3 frequency chart for the latest 20 draws:
Number 3 hit 9 times.
Number 6 - 3 times only.
Why not all of them 6 as should be? Clear evidence of deviations (or trends) in true random selection. All lotteries have such deviations.
But I'm stating the fact after it happened. Perfectly true. But number 3 did not end up on top of the chart in one day and number 6 nosedived to the bottom in one day, either. It took them some time to reach their respective levels of popularity. And this opens the window to measurements. You can measure the number performance from day to day and make your picks. I use that option, among several others.
2. Mathematical formulas fallibility.
No mathematical formula will succeed continuously in any lottery. On this point I agree with you perfectly because it is a documented fact. However, who says that you must use only one? Monitor several and pick the best performer at any given time. Backtracking is essential, in my creed - don't play without it.
From what I could observe in LP discussions regarding mathematics for lotteries is that the great majority of people concentrate exclusively on the output from the formulas: put some numbers in the formula and let it spit out either the direct winners or a narrow range of values with winners mixed among them. That's a formidable task to achieve due to the shear odds stacked against you, which in jackpot lotteries easily run into tens on millions. So you have to filter, divide, subtract etc. huge number of combinations to make the play manageable - usually ridding of potential winners as well. For me this is a dead end.
But mathematical formulas, apart from the output end, also have the input one - the range of numbers you put in them. So the question arises if you really have to consider all the numbers from a given lottery, in our example - 10 in Pick 3. And the answer is a definite NO.
The logic behind this is very simple and I apologize for asking such a dumb question but bear with me for a moment: what is easier to manage: 49 numbers in Canadian Lotto 6/49 (input) or 12+ mln combinations that it requires to win a jackpot? For me it's a no-brainer at all and I never bothered analyse the output end. Instead, I always focused on input; and I did play this lottery for real.
So how do you control the input end? Wheeling is the answer and it is a big subject in itself. Wheels allow you to not only reduce the pool of numbers used for play but at the same time hugely reduce the output from a formula - without eliminating the potential winners. And that's a different ball game.
My point is - mathematics generates is good at generating statistical charts, but is worthless when it comes time to choose and play the digits having the best chance of winning.
This is a point in which we differ completely as I strongly believe that statistics CAN be used successfully for predicting winners, and are the only ones I would ever use. And backtracking is essential for any formula you apply because fluctuations in their performance could be wild.
3. Supporting evidence.
For almost 8 weeks I've been running a simulation for Wisconsin Pick 3. I don't play it because I don't live in Wisconsin, and the choice of this lottery was random. I'm testing the capacity of the system I've implemented and thus gaining a practical experience. The system implements all the principles I spelled out in my previous post. And the results are quite interesting.
First, it confirms that no single prediction formula will succeed for more than a week. So far every week a different formula was a best performer. A good argument against those who advocate "pick once, play many days" strategies. According the the sim results such a strategy is a looser.
Secondly, I don't bother to control the output (1000 combos in Pick 3). I control the input (10 numbers in Pick 3). I use different statistical methods but none of them will select more than 8 numbers (from the pool of 10). And these numbers are always wheeled - in this case for box, which gives 56 unique combinations that contain a winner if you hit 3 in 8 in any sequence (which turns out not to be so difficult).
8 numbers out of 10 is 80%, if my math skills do not fool me. In Pick 3 we draw 3 numbers (for a single) so each position, in my prediction, in order to win, must contain a number from 0 to 7, or I lost. These are the odds: 8x8x8/10x10x10 which computes to 51.2%. For doubles it's 64% as only 2 numbers are counted. So, does it come as a surprise that the best performers every week, at least so far, had 5-6 wins every week? Actually, it does, as I did not expect such results. Is it sustainable? Only time can tell. And that's the input end results.
How about the output end? Hypothetically, let's say I selected the date-based pyramid (I'm joking, of course, I would never play something like this) and it gave me 120 combos which I shrunk, using various filters, to the same 56 combos. Among 1000 possible combos it's what? - 5.6%. I'm not a statistician or mathematician but it doesn't seem like it's even a close contest.
That's the verbal proof and I myself consider it unsatisfactory. But I have a pictorial as well. I cannot post the pictures directly in LP but you can view them on Pinterest under the name Lotterix on the pin board Pick 3 lottery.
Not long ago somebody groaned in LP that Pick 3 is so hard to win. It isn't - it's the easiest to win lottery I ever ran across. My advice - just watch how you are playing. It may make huge difference.
Happy New Year to all again - let the jackpot be yours.
Substitution Workout with Value StrategyExample of trend analysis for Position 1 in a Pick 3 game.
The last 3 digits in a 3 column tracking chart are 125.
What's Next?1231 Evening
1|2111213| What's next? 1, 2, 3. I chose 2
2|3222324| What's next? 3, 2, 4. I chose 3
5|4333435| What's next? 3, 4, 5. I chose 4Actually, I chose 2 in Line 1. The choices for Lines 2 and 3 are by default.
The numbers for the three lines, 234, 123, etc, are Vertical Followers generated by processing winning integers 1,2 and 3 that arrived in past drawings.
The winning permutation for the Texas Pick 3 Evening drawing is 290.
I made the correct choice for Position 1.
However, when I processed the data for Position 2, I chose 6, which was incorrect.
I did choose the 0 for Position 3.The only mathematics in this method is actually basic arithmetic where Values ranging from 1 to 4 are added to achieve Sum totals ranging from 2 to 12.
No MIT grads required.I'm omitting the supporting tracking charts because it would require too much time and energy.
What am I doing??
I'm using tracking charts and trend data to choose what my intellect suggests are the best integers to play - one at a time.
I have no need for complex mathematical computations, statistical charts, wheels are anything other than just common sense needed to arrange and re-arrange 3 balls according to specific rules of procedure.
It's basically child's play.
I don't win everyday but I'm winning often enough to keep it interesting and worthwhile.
Might I suggest you use 2017 to set aside current methods and consider something different. -
Quote: Originally posted by aquariuslottery on Dec 31, 2016
There are a lot of things in this world that once were considered impossible. Beating the lottery with a system may or may not be one of them.
This may largely depend on the definition of "beating" the lottery. For some it will be jackpot only, for others occasional lesser prizes will do; for me breaking even or above would be a good reason for satisfaction.
Isn't it amazing, with all the analysis tools (hot/cold, skip....etc.) that nobody can triangulate wins in a somewhat consistent manner.
The problem with all numeric random lotteries is that nothing in them is consistent - they fluctuate constantly. Identifying patterns (I call them short term trends) in these fluctuations is, I believe, the only realistic way to win. These patterns will not last for very long. For that very reason you cannot use only one prediction method for picking winners. Apart from your favorite Method A you HAVE to have Methods B, C, and probably several others.
That leads me to believe that there are plenty of elements out there (probably twenty or thirty of them) to develop a winning system.
Actually, I believe, there are only 4 such elements (and they were tested in real play):
- Statistics based on the past draws, particularly the most recent ones.
- Predictions based on statistics.
- Wheels.
- Backtracks.
All this stuff has to be computerized, there is no room for manual computations for 2 reasons: they are slow and easily subjected to undetected errors which may screw up results for weeks or even months and this cannot be allowed because it may also cost big money. For the same reason spreadsheet workouts must also be excluded.
While most people in LP appreciate the value of backtracks, what amazes me is how little attention is given to wheeling. Wheeling is necessary for all random numeric lotteries and absolutely ESSENTIAL for jackpot lotteries. I won't bother with any lottery if I don't have wheels for it. Either I will get them or develop my own (the latter being my preferred choice). LP has wheels and I wonder how many people use them. Probably not many.
You are wise to look at all systems at the LP with a very critical eye.
And not only these. If you want to use a commercial package apply the same principle. Particularly to their prediction methods. If the software does nor explain HOW it makes predictions (so you can verify them manually) it's SFFS (Secret Formula For Suckers).
Just one persons opinion. *S*
Just another persons opinion. No *BS*
Hi,
First of all, I would like to thank all that responded to my post.
Almost everybody here has a different on how to predict the winning lottery numbers if indeed that con be done. The method chosen is whatever feels right to the individual.
I would like to make a couple comments to aquariuslottery regarding the amount of elements. There might be a whole lot more there than you are seeing. Perhaps, it isn't just the history of the lottery numbers themselves, but the historical properties that can be associated with those numbers. If the data you use isn't the correct one(s), then it is going to be garbage in/ garbage out no matter how many statistical methods you use. You are welcome to use past draws as your only data element but, you might also be missing a gold mine in additional wealth of information that can be gathered and analyzed.
Food for thought:
In picking/predicting lottery numbers, it is about the probabilities, not the possibilities.
Even randomness obeys probability.
Best of luck to all.
You are a slave to the choices you have made. jk
Even a blind squirrel will occasionally find an acorn.
There is no elevator to success, you will have to take the stairs.
-
Quote: Originally posted by JKING on Dec 31, 2016
Hi,
First of all, I would like to thank all that responded to my post.
Almost everybody here has a different on how to predict the winning lottery numbers if indeed that con be done. The method chosen is whatever feels right to the individual.
I would like to make a couple comments to aquariuslottery regarding the amount of elements. There might be a whole lot more there than you are seeing. Perhaps, it isn't just the history of the lottery numbers themselves, but the historical properties that can be associated with those numbers. If the data you use isn't the correct one(s), then it is going to be garbage in/ garbage out no matter how many statistical methods you use. You are welcome to use past draws as your only data element but, you might also be missing a gold mine in additional wealth of information that can be gathered and analyzed.
Food for thought:
In picking/predicting lottery numbers, it is about the probabilities, not the possibilities.
Even randomness obeys probability.
Best of luck to all.
After reading these last few posts I'm ready to go to sleep. Boring!
Say hey!
-
There once were five balls making a deal with the machine. Collusion!
-
Maybe 2017 will be the year when someone will provide a cast-iron explanation how dead pieces of plastic really are alive and know how to win!!!
-
Last year mathematicians found patterns in random numbers. Prime numbers to be specific. Prime numbers are the basis for the fundamental theorem of arithmetic. They didn't use the word 'alive'. They used the word shocked to describe their reaction.
-
Quote: Originally posted by bobby623 on Jan 1, 2017
Maybe 2017 will be the year when someone will provide a cast-iron explanation how dead pieces of plastic really are alive and know how to win!!!
I doubt it, people come to LP looking for iron clad explanations of how to win not to explain them. Besides those who think they know how to win have never shown they have ever won a major prize. .
* you don't need to buy every combination, just the winning ones *
-
Quote: Originally posted by RJOh on Jan 1, 2017
I doubt it, people come to LP looking for iron clad explanations of how to win not to explain them. Besides those who think they know how to win have never shown they have ever won a major prize. .
https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/307879
This is one of 4 Daily 4 wins I had in December.
I have a $5200 winning ticket but all of my attempts to post the image have failed.
Will keep trying.
Maybe one of these days a mathematics supporter will post some evidence demonstrating that
dead as dirt lottery balls can come alive and produce a win for the believers.
Somehow, I doubt it.
All I'm seeing are fancy statistical charts and Excel programs that, in my Trend world, are have little or no value.
I don't expect anyone will change their minds about mathematical solutions because they don't have any alternatives.
I'm just saying that Trend analysis can be good to those who are willing to give it a try. -
Quote: Originally posted by bobby623 on Jan 1, 2017
https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/307879
This is one of 4 Daily 4 wins I had in December.
I have a $5200 winning ticket but all of my attempts to post the image have failed.
Will keep trying.
Maybe one of these days a mathematics supporter will post some evidence demonstrating that
dead as dirt lottery balls can come alive and produce a win for the believers.
Somehow, I doubt it.
All I'm seeing are fancy statistical charts and Excel programs that, in my Trend world, are have little or no value.
I don't expect anyone will change their minds about mathematical solutions because they don't have any alternatives.
I'm just saying that Trend analysis can be good to those who are willing to give it a try.We don't have pick 4 here or games like All Or Nothing. There is no pick 1 and also no game under 1 euro.
Several years ago, I went a few times to the casino. My small budget didn't allow much. A minimum bet of 5 euros on a number is quickly exhausting your budget. It is quicker than pick 3 and pays more.
I believe that some are faster there with programs and observation than calculations. Wheels are probably all done with computers. I suppose that they are perfect by now. I don't reinvent the wheels, but programmed some optimisations that others don't have in their soft. People used to stare at wheels and their guarantees. They are pearls.
I have seen few good charts and many bad systems. A few things do it for some time. A trend can be good to play, if it just doesn't decline. Eventually you catch it on the apex. Some time is left to play and compensate previous losses. You still need a better payout. Cash keeps the game going. When yours is up, the gaming stops.
-
Quote: Originally posted by JKING on Dec 31, 2016
Hi,
First of all, I would like to thank all that responded to my post.
Almost everybody here has a different on how to predict the winning lottery numbers if indeed that con be done. The method chosen is whatever feels right to the individual.
I would like to make a couple comments to aquariuslottery regarding the amount of elements. There might be a whole lot more there than you are seeing. Perhaps, it isn't just the history of the lottery numbers themselves, but the historical properties that can be associated with those numbers. If the data you use isn't the correct one(s), then it is going to be garbage in/ garbage out no matter how many statistical methods you use. You are welcome to use past draws as your only data element but, you might also be missing a gold mine in additional wealth of information that can be gathered and analyzed.
Food for thought:
In picking/predicting lottery numbers, it is about the probabilities, not the possibilities.
Even randomness obeys probability.
Best of luck to all.
Hi,
In picking/predicting lottery numbers, it is about the probabilities, not the possibilities.
You hit the right spot again. That's exactly my line of thinking - probabilities.
Which one of these is more probable to predict correctly (hint provided)?
1. Coin toss (50%) - not applicable in lotteries.
2. Dice roll (about 17%) - again, not applicable in lotteries.
3. 1 number out of 10 (10% - Pick 3.
4. 1 combo out of 1000 (0.1%) - again Pick 3.
And so on for the jackpot lotteries.
So it challenges my intellect to understand why so many people, in case of Pick 3, opt for #4 instead of #3.
I would like to make a couple comments to aquariuslottery regarding the amount of elements. There might be a whole lot more there than you are seeing. Perhaps, it isn't just the history of the lottery numbers themselves, but the historical properties that can be associated with those numbers. If the data you use isn't the correct one(s), then it is going to be garbage in/ garbage out no matter how many statistical methods you use. You are welcome to use past draws as your only data element but, you might also be missing a gold mine in additional wealth of information that can be gathered and analyzed.
Historical properties of the numbers, as you define them, that provide the additional information to be gathered and analyzed may well exist however the question remains how their existence and analysis enhances and benefits the prediction process in reality and in comparison with other methods. Are the results the same, better or worse? So far the hard numeric evidence is missing (or I haven't run across one) and, with all the due respect, the verbal assurances do not make the cut.
I can agree without blinking an eye that the process of improving predictability is a never ending quest and if I see enhancements to what I'm already doing I will be the first one to adopt them. However, so far I haven't seen any well documented ones so for now, as somebody wisely advised on LP, I'll stick to my guns which, at this time, seem to me quite satisfactory.
......
-
Quote: Originally posted by aquariuslottery on Jan 1, 2017
Hi,
In picking/predicting lottery numbers, it is about the probabilities, not the possibilities.
You hit the right spot again. That's exactly my line of thinking - probabilities.
Which one of these is more probable to predict correctly (hint provided)?
1. Coin toss (50%) - not applicable in lotteries.
2. Dice roll (about 17%) - again, not applicable in lotteries.
3. 1 number out of 10 (10% - Pick 3.
4. 1 combo out of 1000 (0.1%) - again Pick 3.
And so on for the jackpot lotteries.
So it challenges my intellect to understand why so many people, in case of Pick 3, opt for #4 instead of #3.
I would like to make a couple comments to aquariuslottery regarding the amount of elements. There might be a whole lot more there than you are seeing. Perhaps, it isn't just the history of the lottery numbers themselves, but the historical properties that can be associated with those numbers. If the data you use isn't the correct one(s), then it is going to be garbage in/ garbage out no matter how many statistical methods you use. You are welcome to use past draws as your only data element but, you might also be missing a gold mine in additional wealth of information that can be gathered and analyzed.
Historical properties of the numbers, as you define them, that provide the additional information to be gathered and analyzed may well exist however the question remains how their existence and analysis enhances and benefits the prediction process in reality and in comparison with other methods. Are the results the same, better or worse? So far the hard numeric evidence is missing (or I haven't run across one) and, with all the due respect, the verbal assurances do not make the cut.
I can agree without blinking an eye that the process of improving predictability is a never ending quest and if I see enhancements to what I'm already doing I will be the first one to adopt them. However, so far I haven't seen any well documented ones so for now, as somebody wisely advised on LP, I'll stick to my guns which, at this time, seem to me quite satisfactory.
What have chances to do with predictions and beating the lowered payout?
You wouldn't win a coin toss.
-
Quote: Originally posted by bobby623 on Jan 1, 2017
https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/307879
This is one of 4 Daily 4 wins I had in December.
I have a $5200 winning ticket but all of my attempts to post the image have failed.
Will keep trying.
Maybe one of these days a mathematics supporter will post some evidence demonstrating that
dead as dirt lottery balls can come alive and produce a win for the believers.
Somehow, I doubt it.
All I'm seeing are fancy statistical charts and Excel programs that, in my Trend world, are have little or no value.
I don't expect anyone will change their minds about mathematical solutions because they don't have any alternatives.
I'm just saying that Trend analysis can be good to those who are willing to give it a try."I'm just saying that Trend analysis can be good to those who are willing to give it a try."
Are you sure other players aren't using trends to pick combinations to play too, just different trends than you use?
For example, when all past 334 MM drawings since its last matrix change are sorted into an ascending order, 90% of the numbers in column one are 1-25, in column two are 7-41, in column three are 17-54, in column four are 31-68 and in column five are 49-75. 31% of the time all five numbers in a winning combinations and 32% of the time at least four numbers in a winning combination are within these parameters. Using just this parameter can reduce the possible combinations by 50% making playing MM more like playing a 5/66+1/15 game rather than a 5/75+1/15 game.Also when you compare the latest winning combination with previous combinations a template is produced that's common to 8-12% of all winning combinations. Even with more trends to analyze you still have hundreds of possible picks. The only way to know if such trend analysis improve your odds is comparing your results over the long term with other players. One way of doing this by posting your picks on the prediction board.* you don't need to buy every combination, just the winning ones *
-
Quote: Originally posted by aquariuslottery on Jan 1, 2017
Hi,
In picking/predicting lottery numbers, it is about the probabilities, not the possibilities.
You hit the right spot again. That's exactly my line of thinking - probabilities.
Which one of these is more probable to predict correctly (hint provided)?
1. Coin toss (50%) - not applicable in lotteries.
2. Dice roll (about 17%) - again, not applicable in lotteries.
3. 1 number out of 10 (10% - Pick 3.
4. 1 combo out of 1000 (0.1%) - again Pick 3.
And so on for the jackpot lotteries.
So it challenges my intellect to understand why so many people, in case of Pick 3, opt for #4 instead of #3.
I would like to make a couple comments to aquariuslottery regarding the amount of elements. There might be a whole lot more there than you are seeing. Perhaps, it isn't just the history of the lottery numbers themselves, but the historical properties that can be associated with those numbers. If the data you use isn't the correct one(s), then it is going to be garbage in/ garbage out no matter how many statistical methods you use. You are welcome to use past draws as your only data element but, you might also be missing a gold mine in additional wealth of information that can be gathered and analyzed.
Historical properties of the numbers, as you define them, that provide the additional information to be gathered and analyzed may well exist however the question remains how their existence and analysis enhances and benefits the prediction process in reality and in comparison with other methods. Are the results the same, better or worse? So far the hard numeric evidence is missing (or I haven't run across one) and, with all the due respect, the verbal assurances do not make the cut.
I can agree without blinking an eye that the process of improving predictability is a never ending quest and if I see enhancements to what I'm already doing I will be the first one to adopt them. However, so far I haven't seen any well documented ones so for now, as somebody wisely advised on LP, I'll stick to my guns which, at this time, seem to me quite satisfactory.
Hi,
Thanks for your reply.
Like I said from the beginning, individuals use the prediction methods that feels right to them. The debate between your approach and my approach in lottery prediction methods is and has been a classic debate at the LP for the ten years plus that I have been coming here. I have seen the approach and mindset you are using repeated over and over by a number of very good mathematicians here with the same frustrated results. Who knows, maybe you will do better. As for me, those repetitions said use a different approach.
Examples of the uses and benefits historical properties data is scattered throughout the lottery post threads. It is there for the taking if and when you are willing to take the time to find it and are ready for it.
So, going back to the original point:
Isn't it amazing, with all the analysis tools (hot/cold, skip....etc.) that nobody can triangulate wins in a somewhat consistent manner. That leads me to believe that there are plenty of elements out there (probably twenty or thirty of them) to develop a winning system. The problem everyone is having is one of data handling and analysis of the info they have tracked. Just one persons opinion. *S*
Best of luck to all
You are a slave to the choices you have made. jk
Even a blind squirrel will occasionally find an acorn.
There is no elevator to success, you will have to take the stairs.