It doesn't really matter SergeM.
Stack47 is quite astute when it comes to clearly describing the many nuances of combinatorics and their associated probabilities. One of my earliest posts at this website contained a casual reference to the fact that by choosing certain distributions in your betting you could, if you chose to, spread your winnings out over more frequent smaller hits. I've brought it up several times since then too. Nobody commented at the time, apparently because I was also making it clear that overall long term winnings would remain the same. This is ALL that Stack47's truisms are going to accomplish!
Here's another excerpt from the post I quoted earlier that you objected to as being out of context.
"The logic is the conditions we set and the math is what we should expect by meeting the conditions. A 3 if 3 of 15 numbers wheel has 57 lines so that must be compared to other 57 line bets. The odds against any 57 lines having a 3 number match in MM is 5.37 to 1. By setting the conditions that 3 of the 15 numbers will match, we can get a guaranteed 3 number match by 'if this then that'."
Ah, yes, "CONDITIONS" and "IF." (Those words are used often in situations involving UNCERTAINTY, aren't they?) Stack47 delights in using the "n if m" construction. Realistically, it should read...
n IF m .
He says, "By setting the conditions that 3 of the 15 numbers will match, we can get a guaranteed 3 number match..." Now, that's quite a mouthful. IF he had a way to guarantee that "3 of the 15 numbers will match," he would not be posting here, he would be sunbathing on the Riviera! The fact is, his mostly true mathematical assertions about the probabilities that WOULD hold IF he was guaranteed a 3/15 match are of absolutely NO value, because he has no way of guaranteeing this "condition." His methods of reducing sets of 56 or 59 numbers to 15 involve the long debunked approaches of choosing "HOT" or "DUE" numbers, or meaningless. and often silly, "patterns." The balls are not aware of patterns.
Several proponents of these approaches claim to be computer programmers. If they are, they should know how easy it would be to write the necessary [simple] code to simulate their methods using Monte Carlo Methods and prove, or disprove, once and for all, their assertions.
IF they feel it is too complex a task to simulate the counting of previously drawn numbers to generate their sets of 15, cycling through all the historical results available, THEN I'm here to tell them it's time they sign up for an introductory programming course at their local college.
Of course, now they will claim there is much more than HOT and DUE involved - there are all the other patterns to consider, including the DIGIT frequencies, layed out by the digit man. Believe me, even as you read this, there are countless simulations running with extreme complexity in economics, sociology, the physical sciences, and many other fields. Most are using vast amounts of actual data intertwined with data generated with random number generators. To claim that the SIMPLICITIES of Lotto gaming "Systems" can not be reliably simulated, is a Royal Cop Out!
--Jimmy4164