I'm currently working on a method that I think can increase a person's chances of
winning the jackpot. Obviously it's impossible to guarentee a win unless you
buy every single possible combination. The method is extremely time consuming
and expensive and can only guarentee a minimum cash back amount. But once I
have it hashed out I was hoping I could post everything I have here and see if
anyone is willing to work with me on improving the method to further increase
the odds, cut down on the cost, and increase the minimum guarenteed
reimbursement.
Because of the current cost ($552 each time you play) the method is designed to be used only for lottery pools
and in games with large pay off amounts.
The idea is to target the 2 minimum prizes which are the Mega Only tickets and the
Mega plus 1 tickets.
The idea is to purchase 552 tickets in sets of 12. 12 tickets for each of the 46 mega #s. And within each set of 12,
52 numbers 1 through 56 played once and 4 numbers 1 through 56 played twice.
Within the 552 tickets 640 of the 1540 possible 2 digits combinations will be
repeated 3 times each and the other 900 repeated 4 times with no repeating 3, 4, or
5 digit combinations.
I'm currently making a chart of all winning lottery numbers from Sept 6, 1996 to
the present and comparing all the combinations. I'm only 1/2 through it but so
far it looks as if there has never been a repeat of any 5 + M combos, 5 number
combos, or 4 + M number combos. And so far I've only found a repeat of two 4
number combos and a small handful of 3 + M number combos.
I'm still working on the numbers but I believe the chances of winning the jackpot using this method
are 1 out of 325391.7333.
This
method will guarentee ONLY ONE of the following possible winning combinations:
One 5 + M, Four 1 + M, & Seven M only
One 5 + M, three 1 + M, & Eight M only
One 5 + M, two 1 + M, & Nine M only
One 5 + M, one 1 + M, & ten M only
One 5 + M & 11 M only
One 4 + M, one 2 + M, three 1 + M, & seven M only
One 4 + M, one 2 + M, two 1 + M, & eight M only
One 4 + M, one 2 + M, one 1 + M, & nine M only
One 4 + M, one 2 + M, & ten M only
One 4 + M, five 1 + M, & six M only
One 4 + M, four 1 + M, & seven M only
One 4 + M, three 1 + M, & eight M only
One 4 + M, two 1 + M, & nine M only
One 4 + M, one 1 + M & ten M only
Two 3 + M, three 1 + M, & seven M only
Two 3 + M, two 1 + M, & eight M only
Two 3 + M, one 1 + M, & nine M only
Two 3 + M & ten M only
One 3 + M, two 2 + M, two 1 + M, & seven M only
One 3 + M, two 2 + M, one 1 + M, & eight M only
One 3 + M, two 2 + M, & nine M only
One 3 + M, one 2 + M, one 1 + M, & nine M only
One 3 + M, one 2 + M, & ten M only
One 3 + M, two 1 + M, & nine M only
Four 2 + M, one 1 + M, & seven M only
Four 2 + M & eight M only
Three 2 + M, one 1 + M, and eight M only
Two 2 + M, two 1 + M, and eight M only
Two 2 + M, one 1 + M, and nine M only
One 2 + M, three 1 + M, and nine eight M only
Nine 1 + M & three M only
Eight 1 + M & four M only
Seven 1 + M & five M only
Six 1 + M & six M only
Or
Five 1 + M & seven M only
Please don't think I'm nuts. I know this isn't a practical method in it's current state. Once I have all the comparisons done and 552 test combinations picked out to use and compare against up coming winning combos I might have a better idea of how well it works and if there is a way to improve upon it. If anyone else is interested in working on it, I'd be greatful for the help and am willing to share what I have so far with anyone else.
Thanks, MJ (TA)