Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 10, 2016, 7:11 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Playing recently drawn numbers to win a jackpot

Topic closed. 1046 replies. Last post 3 years ago by str8ca$hhomie.

Page 4 of 70
4.517
PrintE-mailLink

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
Posted: April 3, 2013, 12:07 pm - IP Logged

 ...well I only got,  2  of  5,  from my 25

       One thing though,  when your looking at where the, numbers came from,

             frm previous draws,    Try to see where they  REALLY,  came from,

      the middle?,  the end numbers?, the first few numbers,  of any particular draw, you know ... like that.

                                              thanks for responding   by the way,....   Smile

YW X, where were the winning numbers hidden.........................

Tuesday, April 02, 2013            07 · 10 · 14 · 40 · 47    34      4$42 Million
Friday, March 29, 201325 · 31 · 36 · 46 · 53    214$34 Million
Tuesday, March 26, 201320 · 33 · 46 · 49 · 51    464$26 Million
Friday, March 22, 201314 · 27 · 34 · 37 · 41    384$20 Million
Tuesday, March 19, 201303 · 06 · 14 · 21 · 37    353$13 Million
Friday, March 15, 201304 · 08 · 17 · 22 · 32    082$12 Million
Tuesday, March 12, 201309 · 12 · 19 · 20 · 30    394$41 Million
Friday, March 08, 201304 · 11 · 25 · 34 · 35    444$33 Million
Tuesday, March 05, 201306 · 20 · 39 · 41 · 46    423$26 Million
Friday, March 01, 201317 · 30 · 38 · 43 · 51    204$19 Million
Tuesday, February 26, 201306 · 07 · 13 · 15 · 43    074$13 Million
Friday, February 22, 201309 · 13 · 24 · 38 · 49    303$12 Million
Tuesday, February 19, 201301 · 15 · 19 · 30 · 56    283$26 Million
Friday, February 15, 201311 · 35 · 41 · 42 · 44    424$20 Million
Tuesday, February 12, 201309 · 22 · 32 · 38 · 55    443$13 Million
Friday, February 08, 201306 · 15 · 20 · 39 · 50    054$12 Million
Tuesday, February 05, 201302 · 05 · 10 · 26 · 44    464$19 Million
Friday, February 01, 201301 · 30 · 32 · 40 · 41    173$13 Million
Tuesday, January 29, 201308 · 12 · 27 · 46 · 47    063$12 Million
Friday, January 25, 201311 · 12 · 17 · 31 · 48    014$89 Million
    RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
    mid-Ohio
    United States
    Member #9
    March 24, 2001
    19831 Posts
    Online
    Posted: April 3, 2013, 12:32 pm - IP Logged

    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 * 
       
                 Evil Looking       

      Avatar

      United States
      Member #130795
      July 25, 2012
      80 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: April 3, 2013, 8:33 pm - IP Logged

      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. Wink)

      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" Wink.

      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.)

        Ramijami's avatar - wired shell.jpg
        Cape Town
        South Africa
        Member #66343
        October 23, 2008
        115 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: April 4, 2013, 3:36 am - IP Logged

        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.

        Thanks RJOH.

          BobP's avatar - bobp avatar.png
          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. 

          BobP

            Avatar

            United States
            Member #130795
            July 25, 2012
            80 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: April 4, 2013, 2:04 pm - 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. 

            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
            42181
            53191
            68201
            79213
            810221
            922230
            1020243
            1113252
            1225261
            1319274
            1424284
            1534294
            1628302
            1733317
            1825324
            19253311
            2032347
            21303512
            2221368
            23343710
            2427389
            25293912
            26304017
            27274120
            28244212
            29204317
            30204430
            31144517
            32154624
            33134738
            34104836
            35114951
            36125044
            37125141
            38105261
            3995352
            4035472
            41135573
            4275673
            438
            444
            455
            463
            472
            482
            497
            504
            512
            523
            531
            541
            552
            561
            573
            580
            592
            600
            611
            621
            630
            641
            652
            661
            671
            682
            690
            700
            710
            720
            731
            741
            750
            760
            770
            780
            790
            800
            810
            820
            830
            840
            850
            860
            870
            880
            890
            900
            911

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

              BobP's avatar - bobp avatar.png
              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.   

              BobP

                RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
                mid-Ohio
                United States
                Member #9
                March 24, 2001
                19831 Posts
                Online
                Posted: April 4, 2013, 6:08 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.   

                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 * 
                   
                             Evil Looking       

                  Avatar

                  United States
                  Member #130795
                  July 25, 2012
                  80 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: April 4, 2013, 7:45 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.   

                  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". Wink

                  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. Smile

                    Avatar
                    Kentucky
                    United States
                    Member #32652
                    February 14, 2006
                    7322 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: April 4, 2013, 9:16 pm - IP Logged

                    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. Wink)

                    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" Wink.

                    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?

                      Avatar
                      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

                        RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
                        mid-Ohio
                        United States
                        Member #9
                        March 24, 2001
                        19831 Posts
                        Online
                        Posted: April 4, 2013, 11:09 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

                        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 * 
                           
                                     Evil Looking       

                          Avatar
                          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

                            RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
                            mid-Ohio
                            United States
                            Member #9
                            March 24, 2001
                            19831 Posts
                            Online
                            Posted: April 4, 2013, 11:44 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

                            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 * 
                               
                                         Evil Looking       


                              United States
                              Member #93947
                              July 10, 2010
                              2180 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: April 5, 2013, 1:18 am - IP Logged

                              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". Wink

                              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. Smile

                              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."  Smile

                              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.

                              --Jimmy4164

                                 
                                Page 4 of 70