Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 10, 2016, 9:32 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Anyone ever try Author Encoe's strategies?

Topic closed. 63 replies. Last post 4 years ago by fbarnes.

Page 4 of 5
52
PrintE-mailLink

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
Posted: April 16, 2013, 11:19 am - IP Logged

I just figured out how to explain my sense of randomness using an analogy:

Imagine a giant vat of syrup that you are able to tip over to spill the syrup.

The dimensions, thickness and pouring geometry of the vat represents the overriding random control element for that particular system; the syrup represents the random numbers; and the way you pour out the syrup represents the control over the randomness.

I will go to my grave not believing in randomness!

Sounds like all that would require a very large stack of pancakes?

    Avatar
    New Member

    Canada
    Member #83746
    December 14, 2009
    15 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: April 16, 2013, 12:00 pm - IP Logged

    That's funny. I like that.  Hyper

      dallascowboyfan's avatar - tiana the-princess-and-the-frog.jpg
      Oklahoma
      United States
      Member #82391
      November 12, 2009
      6290 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: April 16, 2013, 12:02 pm - IP Logged

      So you're saying I should forget lotteries and become a monk!

       

      MENTAL NOTE: never place the Vicks Vapo-Rub next to the jalapeno dip.

      Green laugh

      I Love Pink & Green 1908


        United States
        Member #116268
        September 7, 2011
        20244 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: April 16, 2013, 12:13 pm - IP Logged

        And never put salt in the sugar bowl.


          United States
          Member #116268
          September 7, 2011
          20244 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: April 16, 2013, 12:15 pm - IP Logged

          That's funny. I like that.  Hyper

          LOL I like McDonald's pancakes the BESTYes Nod


            United States
            Member #128790
            June 2, 2012
            5431 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: April 16, 2013, 12:31 pm - IP Logged

            onlymoney,

            Sometimes amazon reviewers who pump up a book are selling that book. Just an FYI.

            I know.


              United States
              Member #93947
              July 10, 2010
              2180 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: April 16, 2013, 12:39 pm - IP Logged

              Think about it. If a set of numbers over the course of a year or so are truly random, why dont we see random snippets of purely sequential numbers as often as non sequential

               

              But you do see them. They just don't conform to your models. How can you differentiate between random and non-random sequences? There is no Universal definition of what random is. In reality, anyone making a claim that they understand the inner workings of randomness Is shooting themselves in the foot. Think about that for a moment. Random means any which way, up, down, sideways, Inter-dimensional. Any attempt by Humans to look for patterns and decide this is a way to predict future outcomes is false. They're missing the point.

              To answer your question with a question, how do you know for sure the snippets you do see now, aren't part of the random event? There will be many different snippets of sequences to follow.

              I agree OnlyMoney.  There are statistical tests for evaluating [pseudo]random numbers.  These tests can also be applied to numbers produced by mechanical lottery machines.  Here's a good source:

              http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/ST/toolkit/rng/documents/nissc-paper.pdf

              BTW, the long sequence [222...233] that SozzledBoot wondered about is not one I would want to wait for if it's a string of Pick-3 hits!  The probability of that happenning randomly is the same as any other specific string of 12 numbers from the 1000 total.  It's such a small probability that most people would suspect fraud if it were to happen.


                United States
                Member #128790
                June 2, 2012
                5431 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: April 16, 2013, 12:55 pm - IP Logged

                I agree OnlyMoney.  There are statistical tests for evaluating [pseudo]random numbers.  These tests can also be applied to numbers produced by mechanical lottery machines.  Here's a good source:

                http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/ST/toolkit/rng/documents/nissc-paper.pdf

                BTW, the long sequence [222...233] that SozzledBoot wondered about is not one I would want to wait for if it's a string of Pick-3 hits!  The probability of that happenning randomly is the same as any other specific string of 12 numbers from the 1000 total.  It's such a small probability that most people would suspect fraud if it were to happen.

                But do those tests account for the many pre-tests, post-tests, rotation of the ball tubes, and the rotation of the machines? You know, the butterfly effect.

                I always wondered how many times the combos I was betting on showed up in the pre and post draws. Disapprove


                  United States
                  Member #93947
                  July 10, 2010
                  2180 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: April 16, 2013, 6:17 pm - IP Logged

                  But do those tests account for the many pre-tests, post-tests, rotation of the ball tubes, and the rotation of the machines? You know, the butterfly effect.

                  I always wondered how many times the combos I was betting on showed up in the pre and post draws. Disapprove

                  "But do those tests account for the many pre-tests, post-tests, rotation of the ball tubes, and the rotation of the machines? You know, the butterfly effect."

                  Yes.

                  http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/ST/toolkit/rng/documents/nissc-paper.pdf

                  Please take the link above to Mr. Soto's paper at the National Institute of Standards & Technology and take a closer look.  If you do, I think you will agree.


                    United States
                    Member #128790
                    June 2, 2012
                    5431 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: April 16, 2013, 11:05 pm - IP Logged

                    "But do those tests account for the many pre-tests, post-tests, rotation of the ball tubes, and the rotation of the machines? You know, the butterfly effect."

                    Yes.

                    http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/ST/toolkit/rng/documents/nissc-paper.pdf

                    Please take the link above to Mr. Soto's paper at the National Institute of Standards & Technology and take a closer look.  If you do, I think you will agree.

                    Yes, I saw that in an earlier post of yours. I don't have the time do read all that, but may find time In the following days, so I can't comment about the content.

                    Even if I conceded with you on the content, I still propose the Idea I mentioned earlier. It dealt with the Human touch. It's of my opinion that a computer program that's seeded by "A" programmer may not be as fluctuant and dynamic as a Human's interpretation when choosing numbers. A bad example would be If I predicted that the last number of the pick-3 winning numbers will be 1, for the next 3 evening draws in the Florida, and it came true. There's a very good chance the computer program would overlook this as a viable prediction for the next draw. Meanwhile, the Human chose this because he had many other references to compare, and came to a conclusion that was based not just on random programming seeds, but a myriad of thought processes within a Human brain.

                    This doesn't mean the Human thought process will prevail all the time, but Intuition can never be replaced by programs. And that's why I believe It may be possible that statistics made by the program could be erroneous. The only solution right now is to find the median between the two. The only problem with that test is that It's easy to find data concerning computer simulations, but it's nearly Impossible to find data on Intuition. Green laugh

                     

                    Years ago I read somewhere that if someone attempted to replicate the Human brain by building a computer, the computer would be the size of the Empire State Building, and would cost about a Million dollars a day In electricity costs to run it.

                    Eek


                      United States
                      Member #93947
                      July 10, 2010
                      2180 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: April 17, 2013, 12:07 am - IP Logged

                      Yes, I saw that in an earlier post of yours. I don't have the time do read all that, but may find time In the following days, so I can't comment about the content.

                      Even if I conceded with you on the content, I still propose the Idea I mentioned earlier. It dealt with the Human touch. It's of my opinion that a computer program that's seeded by "A" programmer may not be as fluctuant and dynamic as a Human's interpretation when choosing numbers. A bad example would be If I predicted that the last number of the pick-3 winning numbers will be 1, for the next 3 evening draws in the Florida, and it came true. There's a very good chance the computer program would overlook this as a viable prediction for the next draw. Meanwhile, the Human chose this because he had many other references to compare, and came to a conclusion that was based not just on random programming seeds, but a myriad of thought processes within a Human brain.

                      This doesn't mean the Human thought process will prevail all the time, but Intuition can never be replaced by programs. And that's why I believe It may be possible that statistics made by the program could be erroneous. The only solution right now is to find the median between the two. The only problem with that test is that It's easy to find data concerning computer simulations, but it's nearly Impossible to find data on Intuition. Green laugh

                       

                      Years ago I read somewhere that if someone attempted to replicate the Human brain by building a computer, the computer would be the size of the Empire State Building, and would cost about a Million dollars a day In electricity costs to run it.

                      Eek

                      "It's of my opinion that a computer program that's seeded by 'A' programmer may not be as fluctuant and dynamic as a Human's interpretation when choosing numbers."

                      You seem to be thinking that random number generator programmers are trying to produce sequences that will match (predict) the lottery draws.  This is NOT the case at all.  They are trying to produce sequences that are as unpredictable as possible which score high on the randomness tests discussed in the NIST paper.  Here's a good layman's discussion of the concept of randomness:

                      https://www.random.org/

                      "This doesn't mean the Human thought process will prevail all the time, but Intuition can never be replaced by programs."

                      See above.

                      "...the computer would be the size of the Empire State Building..."

                      As you know, computers are substantially smaller today, so sufficient hardware in a reasonable space is no longer a problem.  The problem is the software.  Although computers are better at many repetitive tasks than humans, they still lag far behind us in general cognitive ability.  You might find the [old] computer programming language named LISP of inter
                      est.

                        eddessaknight's avatar - nw paladin.jpg
                        LAS VEGAS
                        United States
                        Member #47729
                        November 22, 2006
                        4507 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: April 20, 2013, 6:54 pm - IP Logged

                        "It's of my opinion that a computer program that's seeded by 'A' programmer may not be as fluctuant and dynamic as a Human's interpretation when choosing numbers."

                        You seem to be thinking that random number generator programmers are trying to produce sequences that will match (predict) the lottery draws.  This is NOT the case at all.  They are trying to produce sequences that are as unpredictable as possible which score high on the randomness tests discussed in the NIST paper.  Here's a good layman's discussion of the concept of randomness:

                        https://www.random.org/

                        "This doesn't mean the Human thought process will prevail all the time, but Intuition can never be replaced by programs."

                        See above.

                        "...the computer would be the size of the Empire State Building..."

                        As you know, computers are substantially smaller today, so sufficient hardware in a reasonable space is no longer a problem.  The problem is the software.  Although computers are better at many repetitive tasks than humans, they still lag far behind us in general cognitive ability.  You might find the [old] computer programming language named LISP of inter
                        est.

                        Hey Jimmy, et al, good stuff again Thanks,

                        I put before all, for consideration:

                        "Allow yourself to believe. No one ever learned to do something he “knew” was impossible. If you disbelieve, in principal, either you will deny the validity of any psychic experience you may have or simply may not permit yourself to have such an experience.”                                                     ~Dr Alexander Tanous, author 'Beyond Coincidence' former Prof St John U & Manhattan College

                        Highly recommended reading for revealing & fun experiences including out of the box testing   Emoji

                         

                        Remember  to walk on water, we forst must get out of the boat (box)

                         

                        Fortuna

                        EddessKnight


                          United States
                          Member #116268
                          September 7, 2011
                          20244 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: April 20, 2013, 6:59 pm - IP Logged

                          "It's of my opinion that a computer program that's seeded by 'A' programmer may not be as fluctuant and dynamic as a Human's interpretation when choosing numbers."

                          You seem to be thinking that random number generator programmers are trying to produce sequences that will match (predict) the lottery draws.  This is NOT the case at all.  They are trying to produce sequences that are as unpredictable as possible which score high on the randomness tests discussed in the NIST paper.  Here's a good layman's discussion of the concept of randomness:

                          https://www.random.org/

                          "This doesn't mean the Human thought process will prevail all the time, but Intuition can never be replaced by programs."

                          See above.

                          "...the computer would be the size of the Empire State Building..."

                          As you know, computers are substantially smaller today, so sufficient hardware in a reasonable space is no longer a problem.  The problem is the software.  Although computers are better at many repetitive tasks than humans, they still lag far behind us in general cognitive ability.  You might find the [old] computer programming language named LISP of inter
                          est.

                          Your starting to sound demonic again Jammy.


                            United States
                            Member #116268
                            September 7, 2011
                            20244 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: April 20, 2013, 7:00 pm - IP Logged

                            Hey Jimmy, et al, good stuff again Thanks,

                            I put before all, for consideration:

                            "Allow yourself to believe. No one ever learned to do something he “knew” was impossible. If you disbelieve, in principal, either you will deny the validity of any psychic experience you may have or simply may not permit yourself to have such an experience.”                                                     ~Dr Alexander Tanous, author 'Beyond Coincidence' former Prof St John U & Manhattan College

                            Highly recommended reading for revealing & fun experiences including out of the box testing   Emoji

                             

                            Remember  to walk on water, we forst must get out of the boat (box)

                             

                            Fortuna

                            EddessKnight

                            Jammy is a disgruntled lottery player who lost a lot of money and cant find a way to get over it.

                              LottoChica23's avatar - Aquarius
                              Fughedaboutit (NY)
                              United States
                              Member #8160
                              October 26, 2004
                              6777 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: May 6, 2013, 8:15 pm - IP Logged

                              If you did and you purchased his books, can I get help interpreting his brand of English to discover what the heck he is trying to reveal?

                              I consider myself a seasoned lottery player.

                              I realize that when looking at numbers and the possibilities of manipulating them I sometimes have tunnel vision. From time to time I do purchase lottery books to see how the other guys are thinking when it comes to playing the lottery. Sometimes I don't learn anything and other times I learn how to think outside of the box.  I'm very happy when I learn something new. Hyper

                              My goal is to become more proficient at selecting Pick 4 numbers.  I recently purchased the Lottery Little Book by Encoe. The author was very helpful to me when I had questions about his methods. I certainly look at Pick 4 (and Pick 3) numbers differently now.

                              As the author states, you have to put forth the effort to entirely understand the methods used in the book. You may have to take it bit by bit to absorb the information. Don't rush the learning process. He is very open to questions, he has always been helpful to me.

                               

                              HTH

                              Matrix Chart Instructions--> http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/191818 

                              check out mysticwomyn Announcers --> http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/140695/673306

                              You can judge the integrity of a man by the way he treats those that can do nothing for him...Thumbs Up