mid-Ohio United States Member #9 March 24, 2001 19831 Posts Online

Posted: April 3, 2013, 12:32 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Ramijami on April 3, 2013

Hi RJOh....do you have a specific way/strategy of selecting the 10-20 lines to play from your several hundred, or do you select it randomly? Interested for my 6/49 to find a way of "extracting" a small group (10-30 lines) of possible winning lines from a large group of several hundred containing several 3/6 and 4/6 matches (and sometimes but rarely a 5/6 match).

Once I pick the parameters I want applied to all my picks, I randomly try to use all the numbers and usually get 5-6 combinations without using any number more than once. When no new combinations come up I increase the times the numbers are used and repeat the process. I continue this until I have the numbers of combinations I want to play. Usually I reject 100-300 combinations for every 5-6 that I accept.

* you don't need to buy more tickets, just buy a winning ticket *

United States Member #130795 July 25, 2012 80 Posts Offline

Posted: April 3, 2013, 8:33 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Ronnie316 on April 3, 2013

I don't know why you care about matching 2 of 5. For MM, it pays nothing unless you also match the mega number.

The object is to find a pattern that produces better than average odds and use it to win a jackpot. The most recentky drawn 35 numbers produced 17 opportunities to hit 5 of 5 last year............

Quoting Stack from an ealier post........

The probability is about 1 in 12 drawings that any 35 numbers should match five numbers or 9 times a year.

I know it creates too many combinations for live play, and thats why I use abrieviated wheels.

First, I want to assure you that I am not judging you or your methods.

These forums seem to be all about voodoo practices; some are cloaked in the language of math, but that is only an illusion for the most part. I see no basis to criticize one voodoo practice more than another. Gambling should be entertaining; whatever makes it more fun for you is the right thing to do. (So long as you gamble "responsibly" -- PSA. )

I am only interested in providing factual information that might be useful to someone. How you choose to apply it or ignore it is entirely up to you.

This is just a form of entertainment and recreation for me. "Entertainment" because it is hoot to see the voodoo priests argue over whose practices have more mojo. "Recreation" because I enjoy the math and the opportunity to do some rudimentary programming.

Ronnie316 wrote: "The object is to find a pattern that produces better than average odds and use it to win a jackpot".

The only way to improve the odds is to purchase more tickets with more unique combinations of the prize category(s) you want to match.

The patterns that we see are the result of the random nature of the lottery games. They can be explained either by combinatorial and statistical math or by simulation of the random process.

But I know I'm talking to the hand.

Ronnie316 wrote: "The most recentky drawn 35 numbers produced 17 opportunities to hit 5 of 5 last year".

I don't know what you mean by "most recently drawn 35 numbers". Do you mean the most recent 7 drawings (7*5 = 35)? Or do you mean 35 unique numbers, which often requires looking at more than 7 previous drawings to find?

And I don't know what you mean by "produced 17 opportunities". All sets of 5 or more unique numbers produce "opportunities" to match 5 of 5. A set of 35 unique numbers produces 324,632 "opportunities" .

Previously, you wrote (here): "I'm using past 35 numbers. They hit 5 of 5 last year 17 times".

That seems clearer. But I disagree.

In 2012, there were 4 drawings where all 5 numbers appeared in 7 or fewer earlier drawings: 12/21 (5), 8/21 (6), 7/10 (6) and 3/9 (7).

And there were 13 drawings where all 5 numbers came from the previous 35 or fewer numbers: 12/21 (20), 11/16 (33), 10/5 (33), 9/7 (35), 8/21 (27), 8/10 (34), 7/10 (21), 6/19 (33), 6/1 (35), 4/13 (35), 4/6 (34), 3/19 (29), 2/24 (35).

(I hope there are no typos. I could not figure out how to copy-and-paste tables or images from Excel into this GUI. Well, the table worked; but it was not readable as I intended.)

Hmm, 4+13 = 17. But there are some overlaps (4).

Ronnie316 wrote: "Quoting Stack from an ealier post........ The probability is about 1 in 12 drawings that any 35 numbers should match five numbers or 9 times a year".

The statement is unclear to me because of typos and awkward construction. And I don't know why you are quoting it in this context. I believe Stack47 wrote it to be critical of your approach.

For the MM, the probability "that any [5 of] 35 numbers should match" 5 drawn numbers is 1 in 3,819,816, the same for any 5 numbers. (That ignores whether or not the mega number matches.)

However, if you have a full wheel of all 324,632 combinations of 35 numbers taken 5 at a time, the probability of matching 5 drawn numbers is about 1 in 12 (11.77).

I cannot make sense of "or 9 times a year". If that is "for 9 times a year", I don't know why Stack47 would choose 9, since you talked about 17.

And the probability "that any [5 of] 35 numbers should match" 5 drawn exactly 9 times in a year is infinitesimally small, about 1.6E-47 (1.6 times 10 to the -47 power).

The probability of any of the full wheel combinations matching 9 times in a year is about 13.69%.

Ronnie316 wrote: "I know it creates too many combinations for live play, and thats why I use abrieviated wheels."

A point that you did not mention until now. You did mention it in another thread (here). But usually, I can only know and comment on statements in the current thread. I cannot go traipsing around looking for any relevant statements you might have made in other threads.

If you intend to wheel 35 numbers to ensure a match of 3 of 5 drawn numbers, the ideal wheel would have 655 lines (tickets). Of course, we usually cannot achieve the required coverage in so few lines. But my point is: that is still a lot of tickets, IMHO, even for a pool. It would take at least 11 man-hours to fill out the forms.

(If you can afford that kind of bet twice a week, you could afford to hire a math consultant who can give you better advice than you will ever get in these forums.)

Ostensibly, such a wheel could reduce the odds of matching 3 of 5 to about 1 in 19.5 (19.48). (Again, ignoring whether or not the mega number is matched.) But only if all the lines of the wheel contain unique triads (6545).

I don't believe that will be the case; you can check. But in any case, that still means about a 95% change of not matching 3.

(Of course, there are still the odds of matching 4 or 5 to consider. And there are the odds of matching 1 or 2; but except for bragging rights, that is useful only if you also match the mega number, as I mentioned before.)

Once I pick the parameters I want applied to all my picks, I randomly try to use all the numbers and usually get 5-6 combinations without using any number more than once. When no new combinations come up I increase the times the numbers are used and repeat the process. I continue this until I have the numbers of combinations I want to play. Usually I reject 100-300 combinations for every 5-6 that I accept.

Dump Water Florida United States Member #380 June 5, 2002 3106 Posts Offline

Posted: April 4, 2013, 6:10 am - IP Logged

"(If you can afford that kind of bet twice a week, you could afford to hire a math consultant who can give you better advice than you will ever get in these forums.)"

Do math consultants win lotteries or just tell lotteries how to make the games harder to win?

Maybe we should model ourselves on the type of person who wins lotteries. Such as wearing a bowling shirt when buying tickets and a six pack.

Only kidding. For those who don't know, this topic could also be called the GH B chart. I have spent many hours with the B chart and have found that when all the winning numbers are to be found within a range of past draws, pretty much all the game's numbers are to be found within that same range of past draws.

"(If you can afford that kind of bet twice a week, you could afford to hire a math consultant who can give you better advice than you will ever get in these forums.)"

Do math consultants win lotteries or just tell lotteries how to make the games harder to win?

Maybe we should model ourselves on the type of person who wins lotteries. Such as wearing a bowling shirt when buying tickets and a six pack.

Only kidding. For those who don't know, this topic could also be called the GH B chart. I have spent many hours with the B chart and have found that when all the winning numbers are to be found within a range of past draws, pretty much all the game's numbers are to be found within that same range of past draws.

BobP

BobP wrote: "[I] have found that when all the winning numbers are to be found within a range of past draws, pretty much all the game's numbers are to be found within that same range of past draws".

I don't know what that means; sounds tautological.

Looking at the past (now) 812 MM drawings, there is no single number of past drawings in which all 5 of the next drawn numbers are found consistently. See the table below.

All 5 drawn numbers can be found in the previous 4 to 91 drawings. 50% of the time, they are found in the previous 16 to 30 drawings (interquartile range). The median is 23.

Alternatively, all 5 drawn numbers can be found among the previous 18 to 56 drawn numbers. 50% of the time, they are found among the previous 44 to 54 drawn numbers. The median is 50.

@Ronnie316: all 5 drawn numbers were found among the previous 35 or fewer drawn numbers only 68 times (less than 9%).

#Prev Draws

Freq

#Prev Nums

Freq

4

2

18

1

5

3

19

1

6

8

20

1

7

9

21

3

8

10

22

1

9

22

23

0

10

20

24

3

11

13

25

2

12

25

26

1

13

19

27

4

14

24

28

4

15

34

29

4

16

28

30

2

17

33

31

7

18

25

32

4

19

25

33

11

20

32

34

7

21

30

35

12

22

21

36

8

23

34

37

10

24

27

38

9

25

29

39

12

26

30

40

17

27

27

41

20

28

24

42

12

29

20

43

17

30

20

44

30

31

14

45

17

32

15

46

24

33

13

47

38

34

10

48

36

35

11

49

51

36

12

50

44

37

12

51

41

38

10

52

61

39

9

53

52

40

3

54

72

41

13

55

73

42

7

56

73

43

8

44

4

45

5

46

3

47

2

48

2

49

7

50

4

51

2

52

3

53

1

54

1

55

2

56

1

57

3

58

0

59

2

60

0

61

1

62

1

63

0

64

1

65

2

66

1

67

1

68

2

69

0

70

0

71

0

72

0

73

1

74

1

75

0

76

0

77

0

78

0

79

0

80

0

81

0

82

0

83

0

84

0

85

0

86

0

87

0

88

0

89

0

90

0

91

1

Note: Frequency sums to 785 because I do not count drawings in which one or more numbers appear for the first time.

Dump Water Florida United States Member #380 June 5, 2002 3106 Posts Offline

Posted: April 4, 2013, 4:27 pm - IP Logged

"I don't know what that means; sounds tautological."

To actually be useful, the information needs to include how many of the game's numbers were also among the set of past draws that had the next draw's winning numbers.

For example: We look and see all the last draw's winning numbers were found among the previous nine draws and that this happens often enough to be interesting.

The next question is, how many numbers we'd have to wheel.

If the set of past draws were to often have say half the games numbers the information could be useful.

When I've looked at these circumstances I find almost all the games numbers are to be found in that set of past draws that had the next draw's winning numbers, so the information is useless.

"I don't know what that means; sounds tautological."

To actually be useful, the information needs to include how many of the game's numbers were also among the set of past draws that had the next draw's winning numbers.

For example: We look and see all the last draw's winning numbers were found among the previous nine draws and that this happens often enough to be interesting.

The next question is, how many numbers we'd have to wheel.

If the set of past draws were to often have say half the games numbers the information could be useful.

When I've looked at these circumstances I find almost all the games numbers are to be found in that set of past draws that had the next draw's winning numbers, so the information is useless.

BobP

"To actually be useful, the information needs to include............................................"

Even useful information appears useless when you expect too much of it. Improving your odds of winning a lower tier prize isn't going to count for much if you're still in the hole after the drawing.

* you don't need to buy more tickets, just buy a winning ticket *

"I don't know what that means; sounds tautological."

To actually be useful, the information needs to include how many of the game's numbers were also among the set of past draws that had the next draw's winning numbers.

For example: We look and see all the last draw's winning numbers were found among the previous nine draws and that this happens often enough to be interesting.

The next question is, how many numbers we'd have to wheel.

If the set of past draws were to often have say half the games numbers the information could be useful.

When I've looked at these circumstances I find almost all the games numbers are to be found in that set of past draws that had the next draw's winning numbers, so the information is useless.

BobP

BobP wrote: "To actually be useful, the information needs to include how many of the game's numbers were also among the set of past draws that had the next draw's winning numbers".

Oh, I see your point now. And I agree wholeheartedly with your conclusions.

That is why I have been emphasizing how many unique numbers are actually in the set of previous drawings that are typically required to cover all 5 drawn numbers. I was trying to be more subtle. "You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink".

On the other hand, these forums are full of flawed logic. As I already pointed out, the only way to improve your odds of matching [*] is by buying more tickets with unique combinations of the category(s) you want to match. Any logic that gets you to that point is as good as any other rationale, IMHO.

-----

[*] But as RJOh points out (here), that does not equate to resulting in a profit. I had toyed with the idea of demonstrating that point with a simulation of Ronnie316's strategy; a fun little program. But enough's enough.

Kentucky United States Member #32652 February 14, 2006 7322 Posts Offline

Posted: April 4, 2013, 9:16 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by mathhead on April 3, 2013

First, I want to assure you that I am not judging you or your methods.

These forums seem to be all about voodoo practices; some are cloaked in the language of math, but that is only an illusion for the most part. I see no basis to criticize one voodoo practice more than another. Gambling should be entertaining; whatever makes it more fun for you is the right thing to do. (So long as you gamble "responsibly" -- PSA. )

I am only interested in providing factual information that might be useful to someone. How you choose to apply it or ignore it is entirely up to you.

This is just a form of entertainment and recreation for me. "Entertainment" because it is hoot to see the voodoo priests argue over whose practices have more mojo. "Recreation" because I enjoy the math and the opportunity to do some rudimentary programming.

Ronnie316 wrote: "The object is to find a pattern that produces better than average odds and use it to win a jackpot".

The only way to improve the odds is to purchase more tickets with more unique combinations of the prize category(s) you want to match.

The patterns that we see are the result of the random nature of the lottery games. They can be explained either by combinatorial and statistical math or by simulation of the random process.

But I know I'm talking to the hand.

Ronnie316 wrote: "The most recentky drawn 35 numbers produced 17 opportunities to hit 5 of 5 last year".

I don't know what you mean by "most recently drawn 35 numbers". Do you mean the most recent 7 drawings (7*5 = 35)? Or do you mean 35 unique numbers, which often requires looking at more than 7 previous drawings to find?

And I don't know what you mean by "produced 17 opportunities". All sets of 5 or more unique numbers produce "opportunities" to match 5 of 5. A set of 35 unique numbers produces 324,632 "opportunities" .

Previously, you wrote (here): "I'm using past 35 numbers. They hit 5 of 5 last year 17 times".

That seems clearer. But I disagree.

In 2012, there were 4 drawings where all 5 numbers appeared in 7 or fewer earlier drawings: 12/21 (5), 8/21 (6), 7/10 (6) and 3/9 (7).

And there were 13 drawings where all 5 numbers came from the previous 35 or fewer numbers: 12/21 (20), 11/16 (33), 10/5 (33), 9/7 (35), 8/21 (27), 8/10 (34), 7/10 (21), 6/19 (33), 6/1 (35), 4/13 (35), 4/6 (34), 3/19 (29), 2/24 (35).

(I hope there are no typos. I could not figure out how to copy-and-paste tables or images from Excel into this GUI. Well, the table worked; but it was not readable as I intended.)

Hmm, 4+13 = 17. But there are some overlaps (4).

Ronnie316 wrote: "Quoting Stack from an ealier post........ The probability is about 1 in 12 drawings that any 35 numbers should match five numbers or 9 times a year".

The statement is unclear to me because of typos and awkward construction. And I don't know why you are quoting it in this context. I believe Stack47 wrote it to be critical of your approach.

For the MM, the probability "that any [5 of] 35 numbers should match" 5 drawn numbers is 1 in 3,819,816, the same for any 5 numbers. (That ignores whether or not the mega number matches.)

However, if you have a full wheel of all 324,632 combinations of 35 numbers taken 5 at a time, the probability of matching 5 drawn numbers is about 1 in 12 (11.77).

I cannot make sense of "or 9 times a year". If that is "for 9 times a year", I don't know why Stack47 would choose 9, since you talked about 17.

And the probability "that any [5 of] 35 numbers should match" 5 drawn exactly 9 times in a year is infinitesimally small, about 1.6E-47 (1.6 times 10 to the -47 power).

The probability of any of the full wheel combinations matching 9 times in a year is about 13.69%.

Ronnie316 wrote: "I know it creates too many combinations for live play, and thats why I use abrieviated wheels."

A point that you did not mention until now. You did mention it in another thread (here). But usually, I can only know and comment on statements in the current thread. I cannot go traipsing around looking for any relevant statements you might have made in other threads.

If you intend to wheel 35 numbers to ensure a match of 3 of 5 drawn numbers, the ideal wheel would have 655 lines (tickets). Of course, we usually cannot achieve the required coverage in so few lines. But my point is: that is still a lot of tickets, IMHO, even for a pool. It would take at least 11 man-hours to fill out the forms.

(If you can afford that kind of bet twice a week, you could afford to hire a math consultant who can give you better advice than you will ever get in these forums.)

Ostensibly, such a wheel could reduce the odds of matching 3 of 5 to about 1 in 19.5 (19.48). (Again, ignoring whether or not the mega number is matched.) But only if all the lines of the wheel contain unique triads (6545).

I don't believe that will be the case; you can check. But in any case, that still means about a 95% change of not matching 3.

(Of course, there are still the odds of matching 4 or 5 to consider. And there are the odds of matching 1 or 2; but except for bragging rights, that is useful only if you also match the mega number, as I mentioned before.)

"The statement is unclear to me because of typos and awkward construction. And I don't know why you are quoting it in this context. I believe Stack47 wrote it to be critical of your approach."

A group of 35 numbers creates 324,632 combinations so any group of 35 numbers has a 1 in 12 chance matching five numbers. The probability is that any group of 35 numbers should match five numbers 10 times in 120 drawings plus or minus standard devation.

"I cannot make sense of "or 9 times a year". If that is "for 9 times a year", I don't know why Stack47 would choose 9, since you talked about 17."

There are 104 drawings in a year and the group Ronnie is isolating on, matched five numbers 17 times which is much better than the probable 8 or 9 times (104/12). Nobody mentioned "exactly" 9 times in one year, but there probably are billions of groups of 35 numbers that will match five number exactly 9 times in any one year period.

"The probability of any of the full wheel combinations matching 9 times in a year is about 13.69%."

Does that include the group of 35 numbers that matched five numbers in the last 10 consecutive drawings?

Eugene Oregan United States Member #128629 May 29, 2012 419 Posts Offline

Posted: April 4, 2013, 9:31 pm - IP Logged

I find it very interesting where you all are looking for the winning #s. Do you think you could be looking to hard? Interesting where you will find them. I posted 12 for the last PB draw on Maddogs challange and had 4 of the correct #s of the 5. Did that also in MM or PB cant remember which one in Jan of this year using the same method. Your methods are solid just not in the right place. God bless and good luck. dld

mid-Ohio United States Member #9 March 24, 2001 19831 Posts Online

Posted: April 4, 2013, 11:09 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by dld7763 on April 4, 2013

I find it very interesting where you all are looking for the winning #s. Do you think you could be looking to hard? Interesting where you will find them. I posted 12 for the last PB draw on Maddogs challange and had 4 of the correct #s of the 5. Did that also in MM or PB cant remember which one in Jan of this year using the same method. Your methods are solid just not in the right place. God bless and good luck. dld

Sounds like your method is a lot better but have you had any better results than others in this thread?

I find most everything everyone writes interesting, but until someone actually win a seond prize or a jackpot it's just intersting reading.

God bless and good luck to you.

* you don't need to buy more tickets, just buy a winning ticket *

Eugene Oregan United States Member #128629 May 29, 2012 419 Posts Offline

Posted: April 4, 2013, 11:31 pm - IP Logged

RJOH

Yes have had success with the Big games IE PB and MM. Have also had a 5 of 6 on the Mi lotto, as you have recently had in the Ohio lottery. Enjoy posting here, and you will be assured whatever i post i have a system in play with what is posted. Would not make sense to put the effort out and not enjoy the win. God bless and good luck. dld

mid-Ohio United States Member #9 March 24, 2001 19831 Posts Online

Posted: April 4, 2013, 11:44 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by dld7763 on April 4, 2013

RJOH

Yes have had success with the Big games IE PB and MM. Have also had a 5 of 6 on the Mi lotto, as you have recently had in the Ohio lottery. Enjoy posting here, and you will be assured whatever i post i have a system in play with what is posted. Would not make sense to put the effort out and not enjoy the win. God bless and good luck. dld

I feel the same way, I play everything I post on the prediction board, if I win there then I win for real too.

* you don't need to buy more tickets, just buy a winning ticket *

United States Member #93947 July 10, 2010 2180 Posts Offline

Posted: April 5, 2013, 1:18 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by mathhead on April 4, 2013

BobP wrote: "To actually be useful, the information needs to include how many of the game's numbers were also among the set of past draws that had the next draw's winning numbers".

Oh, I see your point now. And I agree wholeheartedly with your conclusions.

That is why I have been emphasizing how many unique numbers are actually in the set of previous drawings that are typically required to cover all 5 drawn numbers. I was trying to be more subtle. "You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink".

On the other hand, these forums are full of flawed logic. As I already pointed out, the only way to improve your odds of matching [*] is by buying more tickets with unique combinations of the category(s) you want to match. Any logic that gets you to that point is as good as any other rationale, IMHO.

-----

[*] But as RJOh points out (here), that does not equate to resulting in a profit. I had toyed with the idea of demonstrating that point with a simulation of Ronnie316's strategy; a fun little program. But enough's enough.

MathHead,

"I had toyed with the idea of demonstrating that point with a simulation of Ronnie316's strategy; a fun little program. But enough's enough."

Wise decision. The people disagreeing with you here are not impressed with simulations. I know; I wrote them and posted the results. I even posted source code which wise guys edited and reposted. You would have to first convince them that computerized random number generators are valid tools, and then teach the value of Monte Carlo Techniques. I tried - even started a thread for MCT. I failed. Too many innumerates literate enough to obfuscate your posts.

Good luck. If you're really lucky, they'll wear you out before you waste as many hours as I did.