Kentucky United States
Member #32,651
February 14, 2006
10,301 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by LottoBoner on Jan 1, 2013
We should be trying to filter out losing numbers! I would put more time into the game, but the astronomical odds, and my sudden dificulty in ESP, is causing me great distress in my "easy" game, although I still do try to locate any "imaginary" "bias" when I do take the time to update and look.
Filtering by decades would as spock would say, be the next "logical" step in this experiment.
Especially if you want to try and use some sort of "scientific method".
"I would put more time into the game, but the astronomical odds,"
Do you really believe the people who bet $588 million on one PB drawing cared about the odds?
"and my sudden dificulty in ESP, is causing me great distress"
And your solution is to buy QPs?
"although I still do try to locate any "imaginary" "bias" when I do take the time to update and look."
There is nothing imaginary about the fact over 19,000 groups of 28 numbers will match five numbers in every one of the next 5 drawings.
"Filtering by decades would as spock would say, be the next "logical" step in this experiment."
The only experiment I saw was several people predicting 28 number groups and checking the results. You can't possibly do any worst than in the last experiment so filtering by decades can't be worse. What's your next "logical step" if that doesn't work out?
"Especially if you want to try and use some sort of "scientific method".
I'm only looking for consistent results that averages five matches once every 12 drawings. If you're proficient at picking the bonus number, 1 in 16 will work too.
Oh, and speaking of experiments, didn't your standard deviation experiment show we can expect deviation from the average?
United States
Member #124,487
March 14, 2012
7,021 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by Stack47 on Jan 1, 2013
"I would put more time into the game, but the astronomical odds,"
Do you really believe the people who bet $588 million on one PB drawing cared about the odds?
"and my sudden dificulty in ESP, is causing me great distress"
And your solution is to buy QPs?
"although I still do try to locate any "imaginary" "bias" when I do take the time to update and look."
There is nothing imaginary about the fact over 19,000 groups of 28 numbers will match five numbers in every one of the next 5 drawings.
"Filtering by decades would as spock would say, be the next "logical" step in this experiment."
The only experiment I saw was several people predicting 28 number groups and checking the results. You can't possibly do any worst than in the last experiment so filtering by decades can't be worse. What's your next "logical step" if that doesn't work out?
"Especially if you want to try and use some sort of "scientific method".
I'm only looking for consistent results that averages five matches once every 12 drawings. If you're proficient at picking the bonus number, 1 in 16 will work too.
Oh, and speaking of experiments, didn't your standard deviation experiment show we can expect deviation from the average?
The only experiment I saw was several people predicting 28 number groups and checking the results. You can't possibly do any worst than in the last experiment so filtering by decades can't be worse. What's your next "logical step" if that doesn't work out?
I think the next logical step would be to quit. Or go back to playing Bingo.
mid-Ohio United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
20,272 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by LottoBoner on Jan 1, 2013
The only experiment I saw was several people predicting 28 number groups and checking the results. You can't possibly do any worst than in the last experiment so filtering by decades can't be worse. What's your next "logical step" if that doesn't work out?
I think the next logical step would be to quit. Or go back to playing Bingo.
When your only strategy is just one guess after another, your next logical step is another guess.
* you don't need to buy every combination, just the winning ones *
The Hall Of The Mountain Kings Tennessee United States
Member #73,902
April 28, 2009
15,378 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by LottoBoner on Jan 1, 2013
I think Saskatchewan is a province in Canada.
Did you mean Sasquatchian? (meaning of a sasquatch nature)
However a sasquatch would be more hominid than reptile, i suppose.
I think maybe he just doesn't like Saskatchewanubians (people from Saskatchewan).
They are kind of annoying when you think about it.
Of course maybe we wouldn't be so pleasant either if everytime we stepped out our front door, a pack of badgers started chasing us and tearing at our flesh.