Welcome Guest
You last visited August 29, 2016, 8:33 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

What constitutes a good reduction filter?

Topic closed. 22 replies. Last post 4 years ago by SergeM.

 Page 1 of 2

United States
Member #5599
July 13, 2004
1182 Posts
Offline
 Posted: July 13, 2012, 5:00 pm - IP Logged

Hi,

What makes the best reductions filters?

I would suggest that it is a filter that eliminates the most combinations with the least amount of error.

For those of you who program, it is a simple matter of applying a filter to all the possible combinations and seeing how much of a redution has been achieved.

Then weigh the amount/percertage of games you would have eleiminated/lost the winning combination.

It's a funny thing, that when you run to many filters (or combined higher percentage error) the winning combination falls on some combination that you have filtered out.

Another funny thing is that you can use the high and lowest values in a filter as boundry conditions and still get a reduction of combinations (near 0% error).

Aside from any specific filter, what do you look for when considering a reduction filter?

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

Even a blind squirrel will occasioanlly find an acorn.

bgonÃ§alves
Brasil
Member #92564
June 9, 2010
2015 Posts
Offline
 Posted: July 13, 2012, 7:45 pm - IP Logged

Hello, jking, if you split a lottery in 4 parts group will have a zero or a number, and another group, two or more numbers, if you play one of two where you miss, and where to play two in the group has zero or one, also loses, then it is certain to create a standardized formula of rotation because it is 100%, you can give!

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19724 Posts
Offline
 Posted: July 13, 2012, 7:53 pm - IP Logged

Hi,

What makes the best reductions filters?

I would suggest that it is a filter that eliminates the most combinations with the least amount of error.

For those of you who program, it is a simple matter of applying a filter to all the possible combinations and seeing how much of a redution has been achieved.

Then weigh the amount/percertage of games you would have eleiminated/lost the winning combination.

It's a funny thing, that when you run to many filters (or combined higher percentage error) the winning combination falls on some combination that you have filtered out.

Another funny thing is that you can use the high and lowest values in a filter as boundry conditions and still get a reduction of combinations (near 0% error).

Aside from any specific filter, what do you look for when considering a reduction filter?

If you are playing just a few combinations, why generate all the possible combinations and then filter them?  Wouldn't it be faster to only generate combinations using only the numbers that your filters wouldn't eliminate within parameters that your filters would accept?

* you don't need to buy more tickets, just buy a winning ticket *
* your best chance for winning a lottery jackpot is to buy a ticket *

Greece
Member #2815
November 18, 2003
494 Posts
Offline
 Posted: July 13, 2012, 8:02 pm - IP Logged

If you are playing just a few combinations, why generate all the possible combinations and then filter them?  Wouldn't it be faster to only generate combinations using only the numbers that your filters wouldn't eliminate within parameters that your filters would accept?

It doesn't have to be all the possible combinations, that's the extreme scenario. A normal filtering application would be to filter down from a full covering of eg 12 numbers. Any good filter or combination of filters would eliminate tickets from this set to bring it down to a reasonable cost.

If you have something to do, at least do it well...

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19724 Posts
Offline
 Posted: July 13, 2012, 8:13 pm - IP Logged

It doesn't have to be all the possible combinations, that's the extreme scenario. A normal filtering application would be to filter down from a full covering of eg 12 numbers. Any good filter or combination of filters would eliminate tickets from this set to bring it down to a reasonable cost.

Until someone is actually winning some money with such an application it's just another  interesting and entertaining conversation of which there are many here at LP.

* you don't need to buy more tickets, just buy a winning ticket *
* your best chance for winning a lottery jackpot is to buy a ticket *

United States
Member #59354
March 13, 2008
3474 Posts
Offline
 Posted: July 14, 2012, 12:09 am - IP Logged

JKING

I may be letting the cat out of the bag but here is what I think.   First start with a filter that puts a bias

in the sets returned, this bias will show up as a reduction in the pool of numbers possible.  Often in my

DM setups I am left with 20 to 25 numbers from the original 39.  This next part is counter intutive and a

bit hard to understand but if you check every set returned against all the other sets and record all the

match 0,1,2,3,4,5 of 5 you will be looking at the answer.  The bias needed will show up in a type of format

and once you know what to look for the solution will or should become clear.   Pay attention to the 0of5's.

I am being a bit vauge here but ask your self how could paying attention to the number of sets that have

0of5 matching numbers be of any help.   Remember once you run the biasing filter all that is needed is to

make a simple count to know the total different numbers that are used in the sets returned.  Also notice

the ratio of each level of Xof5's   The biasing filter must be set correctly in the first step but if you enjoy this

kind of puzzle then your going to love this.

Hint

In 20 numbers, how many sets can have five different numbers with no repeats and how many sets can you

build that have four non matching numbers.  This is the key to reduction and at first it may seem like I am pulling

your leg but keep digging, you might be suprised what you find.

RL

Working on my Ph.D.  "University of hard Knocks"

I will consider the opinion that my winnings are a product of chance if you are willing to consider

they are not.  Many great discoveries come while searching for something else

Trump / 2016 & 2020

United States
Member #128790
June 2, 2012
5431 Posts
Offline
 Posted: July 14, 2012, 12:23 am - IP Logged

Hi,

What makes the best reductions filters?

I would suggest that it is a filter that eliminates the most combinations with the least amount of error.

For those of you who program, it is a simple matter of applying a filter to all the possible combinations and seeing how much of a redution has been achieved.

Then weigh the amount/percertage of games you would have eleiminated/lost the winning combination.

It's a funny thing, that when you run to many filters (or combined higher percentage error) the winning combination falls on some combination that you have filtered out.

Another funny thing is that you can use the high and lowest values in a filter as boundry conditions and still get a reduction of combinations (near 0% error).

Aside from any specific filter, what do you look for when considering a reduction filter?

after years of using filters i came to the conclusion that the best filter is finding matches. this process relieves the user of the stress of reducing individual numbers. These practices usually also eliminate the winning numbers in the process.

example below.

Vancouver BC
Member #96078
August 22, 2010
108 Posts
Offline
 Posted: July 14, 2012, 12:47 am - IP Logged

Hi,

What makes the best reductions filters?

I would suggest that it is a filter that eliminates the most combinations with the least amount of error.

For those of you who program, it is a simple matter of applying a filter to all the possible combinations and seeing how much of a redution has been achieved.

Then weigh the amount/percertage of games you would have eleiminated/lost the winning combination.

It's a funny thing, that when you run to many filters (or combined higher percentage error) the winning combination falls on some combination that you have filtered out.

Another funny thing is that you can use the high and lowest values in a filter as boundry conditions and still get a reduction of combinations (near 0% error).

Aside from any specific filter, what do you look for when considering a reduction filter?

It's a funny thing, that when you run to many filters (or combined higher percentage error) the winning combination falls on some combination that you have filtered out.

Hi,

For that very reason I never use any elimination filters because you can never be sure if you are not throwing away the winner. Instead I use wheels which GUARANTEE a winning combination if you match certain numbers. This applies to any numeric lottery. I tried wheels in Lotto 649 and now Pick 3. I rely on wheels so heavily that I don't play if I can't wheel, sort of wheel freak.

Aquarius

......

United States
Member #128790
June 2, 2012
5431 Posts
Offline
 Posted: July 14, 2012, 1:19 am - IP Logged

It's a funny thing, that when you run to many filters (or combined higher percentage error) the winning combination falls on some combination that you have filtered out.

Hi,

For that very reason I never use any elimination filters because you can never be sure if you are not throwing away the winner. Instead I use wheels which GUARANTEE a winning combination if you match certain numbers. This applies to any numeric lottery. I tried wheels in Lotto 649 and now Pick 3. I rely on wheels so heavily that I don't play if I can't wheel, sort of wheel freak.

Aquarius

a wheel is good if you have the right numbers.   lol

Greece
Member #2815
November 18, 2003
494 Posts
Offline
 Posted: July 14, 2012, 5:27 am - IP Logged

Until someone is actually winning some money with such an application it's just another  interesting and entertaining conversation of which there are many here at LP.

There are people winning with this method, if you consider the application of an abbreviated wheel as a filtering process over the full covering (which it is actually). It doesn't have to be e.g. a sums filter really, the strict definition of what is a filter. I have a user who has matched 4 times in a row a 4-win in his 6/49 game by picking 12 numbers and wheel them. He is about 600% in profit (including the cost to play) by doing that over this month, he had some good hits in the past too with the same method (5 correct numbers in 12 picked, the wheel returned 4 4-hits) but this one was the most durable in time performance so far and from this point of view, the result is outstanding. Of course I expect more such wins in the near future too. You can check my blog too for this case and more info. I have other users too winning with this method regurarly, so yes they win money by doing exactly that.

If you have something to do, at least do it well...

Dump Water Florida
United States
Member #380
June 5, 2002
3085 Posts
Offline
 Posted: July 14, 2012, 6:24 am - IP Logged

Ask yourself how often you'd like a chance at winning the jackpot.

If your software allows wheels to be imported, use your game's data base as the combinations in a wheel.

Run filters against the wheel made of game draws to find an acceptable percentage of combinations passing your filters.

Apply those filter settings against all combinations, play what you can afford like every 10th ticket or every 100th ticket.

BobP

United States
Member #5599
July 13, 2004
1182 Posts
Offline
 Posted: July 14, 2012, 1:32 pm - IP Logged

Hi,

Thanks everybody for you replies.

Rjoh…

If you are playing just a few combinations, why generate all the possible combinations and then filter them?  Wouldn't it be faster to only generate combinations using only the numbers that your filters wouldn't eliminate within parameters that your filters would accept?

The reason I run all possible combinations is to test the performance of an individual filter. Total combinations-filtered combinations=the reduction. Historical tracking tells you what the percentage error of the filter is. Because of the filter types I run, the amount of resulting combinations will vary every game. That is because I consider lottery picks to be dynamic rather than a static event. In addition, my primary filters are based on positional distribution properties rather than individual numbers.

lottoarchitect…

It doesn't have to be all the possible combinations, that's the extreme scenario. A normal filtering application would be to filter down from a full covering of eg 12 numbers. Any good filter or combination of filters would eliminate tickets from this set to bring it down to a reasonable cost.

And what is the performance of the individual reduction elements in your normal filtering application? To get to a 12 number scheme you must have reduction method that has an associated error rate. If you look at the Maddog challenges in the jackpot section, the majority of people are having a very rough time with the 12 number scenario. In which case, it does matter what wheeling method you use if you don’t have any reliability in the 12 numbers you’ve chosen.

Onlymoney…

after years of using filters i came to the conclusion that the best filter is finding matches. this process relieves the user of the stress of reducing individual numbers. These practices usually also eliminate the winning numbers in the process.

If you watch the total amount of error generated by your filters you will know almost exactly what the odds are that you have eliminated the winning combination.

RL, drsan…

Thank you, I’ve got my work cut out to run the numbers to check out what you’ve suggested.

In conclusion, we all are pursuing the solution to finding the best way to predict the lottery numbers with different methods. I really enjoy the insight that having visibility to different methods gives you. There is a couple common threads, that regardless of methods that we all have to contend with…

1) The amount of error in your calculations…. It’s simply good math to do it. Why get involved with or generate something that has 100% chance of failure? Maybe it’s one of the reasons why a system isn’t performing or isn’t performing as well as it could.

2) There is no simple clear cut method/filter that reliably indicates what the next lottery number picks are apt to be. Yes, I have had my runs of lower tier wins also, but I also know it can be done in a better way.

The common denominator for all of us is what constitutes a good filter or reduction method to achieve the best combinations or best numbers to bet on?

Thanks all

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

Even a blind squirrel will occasioanlly find an acorn.

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19724 Posts
Offline
 Posted: July 14, 2012, 2:12 pm - IP Logged

There are people winning with this method, if you consider the application of an abbreviated wheel as a filtering process over the full covering (which it is actually). It doesn't have to be e.g. a sums filter really, the strict definition of what is a filter. I have a user who has matched 4 times in a row a 4-win in his 6/49 game by picking 12 numbers and wheel them. He is about 600% in profit (including the cost to play) by doing that over this month, he had some good hits in the past too with the same method (5 correct numbers in 12 picked, the wheel returned 4 4-hits) but this one was the most durable in time performance so far and from this point of view, the result is outstanding. Of course I expect more such wins in the near future too. You can check my blog too for this case and more info. I have other users too winning with this method regurarly, so yes they win money by doing exactly that.

I have a user who has matched 4 times in a row a 4-win in his 6/49 game by picking 12 numbers and wheel them. He is about 600% in profit (including the cost to play) by doing that over this month,

You should suggest he join this conversation, he sounds like a player who could add to the conversation just from his experieces.

* you don't need to buy more tickets, just buy a winning ticket *
* your best chance for winning a lottery jackpot is to buy a ticket *

New Mexico
United States
Member #86099
January 29, 2010
11014 Posts
Offline
 Posted: July 14, 2012, 2:45 pm - IP Logged

Hi,

Thanks everybody for you replies.

Rjoh…

If you are playing just a few combinations, why generate all the possible combinations and then filter them?  Wouldn't it be faster to only generate combinations using only the numbers that your filters wouldn't eliminate within parameters that your filters would accept?

The reason I run all possible combinations is to test the performance of an individual filter. Total combinations-filtered combinations=the reduction. Historical tracking tells you what the percentage error of the filter is. Because of the filter types I run, the amount of resulting combinations will vary every game. That is because I consider lottery picks to be dynamic rather than a static event. In addition, my primary filters are based on positional distribution properties rather than individual numbers.

lottoarchitect…

It doesn't have to be all the possible combinations, that's the extreme scenario. A normal filtering application would be to filter down from a full covering of eg 12 numbers. Any good filter or combination of filters would eliminate tickets from this set to bring it down to a reasonable cost.

And what is the performance of the individual reduction elements in your normal filtering application? To get to a 12 number scheme you must have reduction method that has an associated error rate. If you look at the Maddog challenges in the jackpot section, the majority of people are having a very rough time with the 12 number scenario. In which case, it does matter what wheeling method you use if you don’t have any reliability in the 12 numbers you’ve chosen.

Onlymoney…

after years of using filters i came to the conclusion that the best filter is finding matches. this process relieves the user of the stress of reducing individual numbers. These practices usually also eliminate the winning numbers in the process.

If you watch the total amount of error generated by your filters you will know almost exactly what the odds are that you have eliminated the winning combination.

RL, drsan…

Thank you, I’ve got my work cut out to run the numbers to check out what you’ve suggested.

In conclusion, we all are pursuing the solution to finding the best way to predict the lottery numbers with different methods. I really enjoy the insight that having visibility to different methods gives you. There is a couple common threads, that regardless of methods that we all have to contend with…

1) The amount of error in your calculations…. It’s simply good math to do it. Why get involved with or generate something that has 100% chance of failure? Maybe it’s one of the reasons why a system isn’t performing or isn’t performing as well as it could.

2) There is no simple clear cut method/filter that reliably indicates what the next lottery number picks are apt to be. Yes, I have had my runs of lower tier wins also, but I also know it can be done in a better way.

The common denominator for all of us is what constitutes a good filter or reduction method to achieve the best combinations or best numbers to bet on?

Thanks all

I've been around the lottery scene for a long time.  My question is what do you base your assumptions on : by experience??  And what system do you use ?  I've been testing  and analyzing systems for over 25 years, and I have learned many different methods from Wheels,matrix of all sizes, grids you name it.

I wont dazzle you with slick graphics and long-winded bs.,tons of 200 numbers charts ,percentages etc.

I just contribute real systems!

Greece
Member #2815
November 18, 2003
494 Posts
Offline
 Posted: July 14, 2012, 5:06 pm - IP Logged

I have a user who has matched 4 times in a row a 4-win in his 6/49 game by picking 12 numbers and wheel them. He is about 600% in profit (including the cost to play) by doing that over this month,

You should suggest he join this conversation, he sounds like a player who could add to the conversation just from his experieces.

I don't know if I have the right to ask him to join here to discuss this further, I don't want to disturb my users that way. Also I'm not sure if he can add something more to this discussion too. The reason is basically, he uses my programs and just plays what they suggest, so he may just discuss what settings he used in my programs. He was happy enough with the results so he posted his settings and what he won for other users to try/discuss. The first link in my blog is this case, so I may say that if you and others want to ask something about what he did, you can do it there. My part here is to say that this approach is very viable and sort of proven based on the results some of my users get (at least those who tried that and posted results at my forums), who already won good money and are in profit doing this.

 Page 1 of 2