Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 7, 2016, 10:55 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Lottery Code has already been broken

Topic closed. 500 replies. Last post 3 years ago by superstar$.

Page 13 of 34
3.811
PrintE-mailLink
haymaker's avatar - Lottery-012.jpg
Egg Harbor twp.south Jersey shore
United States
Member #112968
June 29, 2011
3856 Posts
Offline
Posted: June 6, 2013, 9:08 pm - IP Logged

Don't sound like Pumpi to me ?

Are you telling me or asking? Green laugh

 

 

 

whats up ?

The sky?  I give up, what?

Asking,

Pumpi76 always had a style of making long complicated sentences,

and then his sig. line had a long X... of how to use the stock market to fix all the world problems.

 

Green laugh the sky ? ROFL

Extraordinary Popular Delusions & the Madness of Crowds    -- Charles Mackay  LL.D.

    rcbbuckeye's avatar - Lottery-043.jpg
    Texas
    United States
    Member #55889
    October 23, 2007
    5603 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: June 6, 2013, 9:15 pm - IP Logged

    I kinda miss reading his posts. He wasnt all there if you get my drift but he was fun to read. I wonder what hes up to and hes doing alright.ya

    CAN'T WIN IF YOU'RE NOT IN

    A DOLLAR AND A DREAM (OR $2)


      United States
      Member #93947
      July 10, 2010
      2180 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: June 6, 2013, 9:24 pm - IP Logged

      onlymoney,

      "That's just semantics. He gave me a 'Depends' answer. He did not answer a question that I posed. The limitations shouldn't be a disqualifier."

      It would be a good exercise for you to compare yoho's June 3rd "depends" answer to the "depends" answer you accepted today.  When you can see that they are the same, you will have arrived.  I am glad to see you understand his more detailed answer of today.

      Earlier you said to me, "I respect your knowledge on computer programs and the periphery, but you resist to be open on the possibility that someone smarter than you and the info you've learned form prominent mathematicians, has actually figured it out.

      I'm sorry but Kola has not "figured it out."  He merely wants you to believe that it CAN be figured out.  Read his words carefully. Even true determinists (which I don't believe he is) will admit that our modern physics, chemistry, and math are adequate for conducting our everyday affairs.  (And this includes analysing lottery draws.)

      You are comfortable now without the Gambler's Fallacy in the world of coin flips; your next step is to move on to Pick-3.  Smile

      --Jimmy4164


        United States
        Member #138440
        January 27, 2013
        44 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: June 6, 2013, 9:35 pm - IP Logged

        On the contrary, the lottery has been cracked. But, more specifically, the Pick 3 lottery. I've ,personally, cracked the code to the game. The key to this is in the randomness itself.


          United States
          Member #128790
          June 2, 2012
          5431 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: June 6, 2013, 9:40 pm - IP Logged

          onlymoney,

          "That's just semantics. He gave me a 'Depends' answer. He did not answer a question that I posed. The limitations shouldn't be a disqualifier."

          It would be a good exercise for you to compare yoho's June 3rd "depends" answer to the "depends" answer you accepted today.  When you can see that they are the same, you will have arrived.  I am glad to see you understand his more detailed answer of today.

          Earlier you said to me, "I respect your knowledge on computer programs and the periphery, but you resist to be open on the possibility that someone smarter than you and the info you've learned form prominent mathematicians, has actually figured it out.

          I'm sorry but Kola has not "figured it out."  He merely wants you to believe that it CAN be figured out.  Read his words carefully. Even true determinists (which I don't believe he is) will admit that our modern physics, chemistry, and math are adequate for conducting our everyday affairs.  (And this includes analysing lottery draws.)

          You are comfortable now without the Gambler's Fallacy in the world of coin flips; your next step is to move on to Pick-3.  Smile

          --Jimmy4164

          Touche !

          You got me.


            United States
            Member #128790
            June 2, 2012
            5431 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: June 6, 2013, 9:42 pm - IP Logged

            On the contrary, the lottery has been cracked. But, more specifically, the Pick 3 lottery. I've ,personally, cracked the code to the game. The key to this is in the randomness itself.

            Go On, what's stopping you?

              Avatar
              Columbia, SC
              United States
              Member #135285
              November 21, 2012
              584 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: June 6, 2013, 9:43 pm - IP Logged

              I **KNOW** that you're gonna be on the winner's list one day!!!  ...Just don't give up!!!

              Aww thanks PlayToWin47......If I ever solve this thing, I'll probably never wanna see another lottery ticket...EVER !

              But thank you so much for the encouragement!!

              Cindi

              "If you can DREAM it, you can DO it!"- Walt Disney


                United States
                Member #93947
                July 10, 2010
                2180 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: June 6, 2013, 9:52 pm - IP Logged

                On the contrary, the lottery has been cracked. But, more specifically, the Pick 3 lottery. I've ,personally, cracked the code to the game. The key to this is in the randomness itself.

                This will not be good news to the millions of Pick-3 players out there.  Since most of the prizes are fixed, you will eventually break the back of Pick-3!  I've generated a lot of random number sequences over my lifetime, many in which I would defy you to find a pattern.  But you don't believe that, so why bother to go further?  Enjoy your soon to be acquired riches!

                  Avatar
                  Toronto
                  Canada
                  Member #138397
                  January 26, 2013
                  179 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: June 6, 2013, 10:21 pm - IP Logged

                  This will not be good news to the millions of Pick-3 players out there.  Since most of the prizes are fixed, you will eventually break the back of Pick-3!  I've generated a lot of random number sequences over my lifetime, many in which I would defy you to find a pattern.  But you don't believe that, so why bother to go further?  Enjoy your soon to be acquired riches!

                  Then again, the lottery HAS been cracked. There's a really simple method to guarantee a win every single time.

                   

                  Just buy all the possible combinations.


                    United States
                    Member #138440
                    January 27, 2013
                    44 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: June 6, 2013, 10:37 pm - IP Logged

                     Well, it's said that you can't predict the numbers based on what has already come out. This is the logic involved with probability. But, if you don't then you have very little to go on and it wouldn't be enough. Therefore, you have to rely on past draws.

                     It's well understood that random processes give rise to patterns. The game ,being a random process, is no exception. The patterns seen with the game occur on a group-level basis. This is due to the differentials between groups of numbers. For example, non-repeating #'s(e.g. 356) and repeating #'s(i.e. doubles and triples).  Indeed, there is a real code to the game. That's because I invented it. But, it's expected that the code is some special mathematical code. Actually, it's not.

                     The reason why the game hasn't really been cracked ,until now, is because of human nature. We're too set on trying to narrow the numbers all the way down to just one or a few ,in order, to maximize profit. The vast majority of systems are built on this basis.  We're always looking for those jackpot wins. But, once you move away from this mindset then things start to become clear. What you really want to do is cover as many numbers as you ,reasonably, can. As we know, the more numbers we play than the better our chances. However, the trick is in how you're choosing those numbers. It's not just about playing as many as you can.

                      Kola's avatar - image
                      Blundering Time Traveler

                      United States
                      Member #28945
                      December 25, 2005
                      1528 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: June 6, 2013, 11:48 pm - IP Logged

                      There's nothing "not congruent" about my statements. I don't know much about physics, but common sense tells me you can't abstract things like such. Of course, I could be wrong, and I pointed that out.

                       

                      Let me give you an example of what I think your argument basically is like: "If you take an apple to the top of a 25-storey building, and let it go, it'll fall to the ground. If you take a chair, it'll also fall to the ground. When you're not on the ground, you'll fall. So if you ever leave earth, as soon as you run out of fuel, you'll keep falling and falling down, unless you have wings. Because wings can make you fly. Birds have proven that."

                       

                      I don't know enough about physics. But I do know a very, very little. First, from my understanding, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but does the big bang theory really suggest that it was a "BALL" of energy? Note my emphasis here, since I studied math for a while, a "ball" has a very precise meaning for me. It's very different to say that the energy was a BALL rather than a point, which was what I was taught it is. When using physics to support your argument, you should be precise, to show you actually know what you're talking about. Again, if I'm wrong, sorry. It's been a while since I last learned physics.

                       

                      Regardless, the second paragraph of your "theory", lets  call it, makes a huge leap of faith. How do you know that this "all is one energy" you talk about cannot be separated? Where's the proof? Your pants and pockets analogy is neither sufficient nor convincing. All I know is, if I cut an apple in half, eat one half, the other half is still left uneaten and unaffected by the fact that I ate the other half.

                       

                      When I said simplistic, I don't mean easy to understand. I meant you're preaching without proof or evidence. You're making deductions and assumptions without any sort of support.

                      "The human race's ability to number things doesn't just spring from some void." Regardless of whether I agree or disagree, where's your proof or evidence?

                      "It springs from the intimate connection that you and your environment have." Evidence? Most of your ideas and statements are like this, without any supporting evidence, just saying that it is so. With absolutely no disrespect to religion, it reminds me of *some* (NOT ALL!) priests who would tell you to listen to the bible's teachings. Why? Because it's the word of god. Why? Because god said so. Where? In the bible.

                       

                      But, okay, let's say you're right. You're right on all the above. The point I doubt most, is again, another part of the very little I know of physics: You can't know the precise location of an electron.

                      The location of an electron is given as a probability density function, where the more time you have, the more confidence you have in that the electron is in a certain area. But as you shorten the amount of time, the probability goes down. Which means you cannot locate an electron at a precise time. This tells me that the location of the electron is more or less "random". It cannot be calculated. What this implies, is that even within this so called "ALL IS ONE ENERGY", there are things that cannot be precisely calculated.

                      Even if everything in the entire universe interacts and affects each other, saying that they AFFECT is completely different from saying that they DETERMINE.

                      That was my main point of this post. So if you skim everything else, please look at that one sentence.

                       

                      I will conclude by explaining why I feel you can't get the "rules" of future draws simply by looking at past draws. How do I know? Well, I don't know. But I'm pretty confident in my feeling. Why? Because if as you say, everything in the entire universe is "ALL IS ONE ENERGY", and interacts and affects each other, than just looking at past draws is simply not enough! If even a wisp of wind on a planet in a galaxy far away could affect us, and affect the draw, well, I highly doubt that simply looking at the numbers from past draws would be sufficient. I mean, even if it was somehow sufficient, you can't be confident in it. How do you know that past draws affect the current draw more than, say, a fat alien in another galaxy eating chips? You can't tell.

                       

                      So even if in the end, the "formula" of the next draw is simply the numbers from the previous draw + 1, you can't be confident in this result unless you've proved everything else that might affect it won't. Which will take a lot of work.

                      Hello yoho,

                      You said, "there's nothing 'not congruent' about my statements" , and you "don't know much about physics, but common sense tells you that you can't abstract things like such". I'll again remind you that you don't need any great learning in physics to understand what is written in most high school science textbooks. The basic and simple science I verbosely echoed in my earlier post is that All is Energy. Thats it. E= MC2. Yes, I understand that you don't know much about physics, but if your common sense still tells you that my preceding statement is an abstraction, then I'm at a loss to further explain.

                      You pointed out what my argument sounds like to you in your "take an apple to the top of a 25-storey building" example. If that what it really sounds like to you even though I didn't violate any known science in my arguments, then I'm at a loss to further explain... 

                      Yes, you are correct in stating that the Big Bang Theory does not suggest a "BALL", but rather says it was a POINT. I self-debated the issue of whether to use a POINT or a BALL. In appreciating the various backgrounds of the people reading this thread who may not be as initiated into the science, I knowingly chose the "BALL" to better illustrate my arguments with a simple and readily accessible image. You say that because you "studied math for a while, a 'ball' has a very precise meaning", and it is very different to say that it was a BALL rather than a point" and   "when using physics to support my arguments you should be more precise, to show you actually know what you're talking about".  In the aggregate, this is quite true but as it relates to my example in this thread about the lottery, are you being authentically candid that it really disturbed you ? if you are,  I wholeheartedly agree with being precise, and yet I made an informed and harmless decision to use the BALL within the context of my particular example. If my decision causes you to question whether I know what I'm talking about balanced against the thrust of my whole post, then I'm at a loss...But I respect your feelings.

                      I'll address the rest of of your post in the following post....

                      Legend says that The Craggy One was once asked about the Lottery Circle and the aged Lottery LoreKeeper whispered in his gravelly eloquence,"It is known among our kind that 2 successive draws are in reality the 2 center-points of 2 intersecting circles that share a common radius - a Root Center. This Vesica Piscis is the creative womb for all numbers, the Still Point from which two draws will unite & a new one is born. This "perfect" space is a wormhole through Time(Change). Master its proportions & your numerical predictions will not falter". 

                        Kola's avatar - image
                        Blundering Time Traveler

                        United States
                        Member #28945
                        December 25, 2005
                        1528 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: June 6, 2013, 11:57 pm - IP Logged

                        There's nothing "not congruent" about my statements. I don't know much about physics, but common sense tells me you can't abstract things like such. Of course, I could be wrong, and I pointed that out.

                         

                        Let me give you an example of what I think your argument basically is like: "If you take an apple to the top of a 25-storey building, and let it go, it'll fall to the ground. If you take a chair, it'll also fall to the ground. When you're not on the ground, you'll fall. So if you ever leave earth, as soon as you run out of fuel, you'll keep falling and falling down, unless you have wings. Because wings can make you fly. Birds have proven that."

                         

                        I don't know enough about physics. But I do know a very, very little. First, from my understanding, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but does the big bang theory really suggest that it was a "BALL" of energy? Note my emphasis here, since I studied math for a while, a "ball" has a very precise meaning for me. It's very different to say that the energy was a BALL rather than a point, which was what I was taught it is. When using physics to support your argument, you should be precise, to show you actually know what you're talking about. Again, if I'm wrong, sorry. It's been a while since I last learned physics.

                         

                        Regardless, the second paragraph of your "theory", lets  call it, makes a huge leap of faith. How do you know that this "all is one energy" you talk about cannot be separated? Where's the proof? Your pants and pockets analogy is neither sufficient nor convincing. All I know is, if I cut an apple in half, eat one half, the other half is still left uneaten and unaffected by the fact that I ate the other half.

                         

                        When I said simplistic, I don't mean easy to understand. I meant you're preaching without proof or evidence. You're making deductions and assumptions without any sort of support.

                        "The human race's ability to number things doesn't just spring from some void." Regardless of whether I agree or disagree, where's your proof or evidence?

                        "It springs from the intimate connection that you and your environment have." Evidence? Most of your ideas and statements are like this, without any supporting evidence, just saying that it is so. With absolutely no disrespect to religion, it reminds me of *some* (NOT ALL!) priests who would tell you to listen to the bible's teachings. Why? Because it's the word of god. Why? Because god said so. Where? In the bible.

                         

                        But, okay, let's say you're right. You're right on all the above. The point I doubt most, is again, another part of the very little I know of physics: You can't know the precise location of an electron.

                        The location of an electron is given as a probability density function, where the more time you have, the more confidence you have in that the electron is in a certain area. But as you shorten the amount of time, the probability goes down. Which means you cannot locate an electron at a precise time. This tells me that the location of the electron is more or less "random". It cannot be calculated. What this implies, is that even within this so called "ALL IS ONE ENERGY", there are things that cannot be precisely calculated.

                        Even if everything in the entire universe interacts and affects each other, saying that they AFFECT is completely different from saying that they DETERMINE.

                        That was my main point of this post. So if you skim everything else, please look at that one sentence.

                         

                        I will conclude by explaining why I feel you can't get the "rules" of future draws simply by looking at past draws. How do I know? Well, I don't know. But I'm pretty confident in my feeling. Why? Because if as you say, everything in the entire universe is "ALL IS ONE ENERGY", and interacts and affects each other, than just looking at past draws is simply not enough! If even a wisp of wind on a planet in a galaxy far away could affect us, and affect the draw, well, I highly doubt that simply looking at the numbers from past draws would be sufficient. I mean, even if it was somehow sufficient, you can't be confident in it. How do you know that past draws affect the current draw more than, say, a fat alien in another galaxy eating chips? You can't tell.

                         

                        So even if in the end, the "formula" of the next draw is simply the numbers from the previous draw + 1, you can't be confident in this result unless you've proved everything else that might affect it won't. Which will take a lot of work.

                        To continue my commentary:

                        You admitted above that you were taught in school that the Big Bang Theory suggests it was not a Ball of energy, but rather a Point of energy. Then you say, "how do you know this "all is one energy ?" I'll just respond by asking you, what does a Point of Energy mean to you? Isn't a point just one source, one field of energy? And when the 'Bang' occurred and the energy differentiated into planets and other matter, is it not still, One rather large Field of Energy? I'll put it very simply. To say no, flies in the face of E=MC2. If you still don't believe it, I will certainly be at loss to explain further...

                        When I use the "pants and pocket" analogy, I'm illustrating my argument with extremely simple and understandable images without violating the science. It need not be overtly complex. I do respect  though that it is not sufficient or convincing enough for you, and agree it will not be for some others. By the way, your apple example does not relate to my argument. But I'll indulge you nonetheless.  What kind of effect were you expecting to see?.When you cut the apple, you changed the energy field and the both halves immediately begin to rapidly oxidize. You eat the apple, and the energy or rather the eloquent information in that apple nourishes you on an atomic level. This science is known.

                        I respect you're sentiments about my comments being deductions and assumptions without any sort of proof. The proof is easily accessible. My assertions about number, and environment, and etc...arise from the simple science that all is one energy, and this has already been proven by physicists. You admitted above that "all was a point of energy" at .01 seconds before the Big Bang. In the ensuing millions of years, stars, planets, oceans, microbes, plants, insects, animals, human, and etc were created. So when I said that the "human race's ability to numbers things don't just spring from some void", but from your connection to the environment, its because the environment gave rise to your biology, and it is through your biology that you have an innate number sense. If you need proof that our biology, or rather your brain is born with innate the ability to count, here are a few pieces:

                        http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1526107/is_the_ability_to_count_innate/

                        http://tvnz.co.nz/content/2017598/425822.html

                        http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-natural-log

                        And lets go deeper..

                        http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-animals-have-the-ability-to-count

                        I hope the all above suffices to show that the human is born with an innate "number sense".

                         I'll address the rest of your comments in a concluding post....

                        Legend says that The Craggy One was once asked about the Lottery Circle and the aged Lottery LoreKeeper whispered in his gravelly eloquence,"It is known among our kind that 2 successive draws are in reality the 2 center-points of 2 intersecting circles that share a common radius - a Root Center. This Vesica Piscis is the creative womb for all numbers, the Still Point from which two draws will unite & a new one is born. This "perfect" space is a wormhole through Time(Change). Master its proportions & your numerical predictions will not falter". 

                          Avatar
                          Toronto
                          Canada
                          Member #138397
                          January 26, 2013
                          179 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: June 7, 2013, 12:40 am - IP Logged

                          I hate how lottery post doesn't let you do partial quotes.

                           

                          I'm not saying that the energy wasn't concentrated "at the beginning". I'm saying after the big bang happened, it isn't "all is one" anymore. It became many.

                          I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that E= MC squared implies that all energy is "one", whatever your "one" is. See, as I mentioned, the number one is a human abstraction. One could mean many things. It could be a singularity, it could mean a group.

                           

                          I can say one person, even though that person consists of so many different organs and further down, atoms. I could say a country, even though there are so many people in a country. But I guarantee you, if someone in the US died right now, most other people in this one country would not even know about it.

                           

                          So what exactly is this "ONE" you keep mentioning? You can't confuse your use of language. It seems one second you use it to mean a large group of objects. Indeed, it seems you're just saying the whole universe with fancy words. But then you say it's "one" like a singular object and use it to "prove" that everything affects each other. It's quite misleading.

                           

                          Also, I mention my physics background (or lack thereof) not to say that I can't understand physics, please don't try to imply that. I'm simply saying I don't have the qualifications to point out all your errors. But please, don't try to pass off your writing as "science". Unless you really think it's science, then why don't you publish it?

                            Kola's avatar - image
                            Blundering Time Traveler

                            United States
                            Member #28945
                            December 25, 2005
                            1528 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: June 7, 2013, 12:55 am - IP Logged

                            There's nothing "not congruent" about my statements. I don't know much about physics, but common sense tells me you can't abstract things like such. Of course, I could be wrong, and I pointed that out.

                             

                            Let me give you an example of what I think your argument basically is like: "If you take an apple to the top of a 25-storey building, and let it go, it'll fall to the ground. If you take a chair, it'll also fall to the ground. When you're not on the ground, you'll fall. So if you ever leave earth, as soon as you run out of fuel, you'll keep falling and falling down, unless you have wings. Because wings can make you fly. Birds have proven that."

                             

                            I don't know enough about physics. But I do know a very, very little. First, from my understanding, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but does the big bang theory really suggest that it was a "BALL" of energy? Note my emphasis here, since I studied math for a while, a "ball" has a very precise meaning for me. It's very different to say that the energy was a BALL rather than a point, which was what I was taught it is. When using physics to support your argument, you should be precise, to show you actually know what you're talking about. Again, if I'm wrong, sorry. It's been a while since I last learned physics.

                             

                            Regardless, the second paragraph of your "theory", lets  call it, makes a huge leap of faith. How do you know that this "all is one energy" you talk about cannot be separated? Where's the proof? Your pants and pockets analogy is neither sufficient nor convincing. All I know is, if I cut an apple in half, eat one half, the other half is still left uneaten and unaffected by the fact that I ate the other half.

                             

                            When I said simplistic, I don't mean easy to understand. I meant you're preaching without proof or evidence. You're making deductions and assumptions without any sort of support.

                            "The human race's ability to number things doesn't just spring from some void." Regardless of whether I agree or disagree, where's your proof or evidence?

                            "It springs from the intimate connection that you and your environment have." Evidence? Most of your ideas and statements are like this, without any supporting evidence, just saying that it is so. With absolutely no disrespect to religion, it reminds me of *some* (NOT ALL!) priests who would tell you to listen to the bible's teachings. Why? Because it's the word of god. Why? Because god said so. Where? In the bible.

                             

                            But, okay, let's say you're right. You're right on all the above. The point I doubt most, is again, another part of the very little I know of physics: You can't know the precise location of an electron.

                            The location of an electron is given as a probability density function, where the more time you have, the more confidence you have in that the electron is in a certain area. But as you shorten the amount of time, the probability goes down. Which means you cannot locate an electron at a precise time. This tells me that the location of the electron is more or less "random". It cannot be calculated. What this implies, is that even within this so called "ALL IS ONE ENERGY", there are things that cannot be precisely calculated.

                            Even if everything in the entire universe interacts and affects each other, saying that they AFFECT is completely different from saying that they DETERMINE.

                            That was my main point of this post. So if you skim everything else, please look at that one sentence.

                             

                            I will conclude by explaining why I feel you can't get the "rules" of future draws simply by looking at past draws. How do I know? Well, I don't know. But I'm pretty confident in my feeling. Why? Because if as you say, everything in the entire universe is "ALL IS ONE ENERGY", and interacts and affects each other, than just looking at past draws is simply not enough! If even a wisp of wind on a planet in a galaxy far away could affect us, and affect the draw, well, I highly doubt that simply looking at the numbers from past draws would be sufficient. I mean, even if it was somehow sufficient, you can't be confident in it. How do you know that past draws affect the current draw more than, say, a fat alien in another galaxy eating chips? You can't tell.

                             

                            So even if in the end, the "formula" of the next draw is simply the numbers from the previous draw + 1, you can't be confident in this result unless you've proved everything else that might affect it won't. Which will take a lot of work.

                            To conclude:

                            In reference to the comments about the electron...While science has confirmed that we cannot determine both an electron's location and momentum. I don't know why you assume this means the location is "random". To assume so, seemingly contradicts the results shown in Double-slit Experiments that electrons have a measure of self-awareness.

                            I do agree that while "all is energy", it does not mean that its all precisely measurable. Its suffice to say though that the electron example is a commentary on the "very small", and probability of course decreases, whereas in the case of numbered lottery balls, the commentary is on the "very big" and probability increases....Its more or less 'different ball-games', no pun intended...

                            Your statement that "even if everything in the entire universe interacts and affects each other, saying that they AFFECT is completely different from saying that they DETERMINE", is absolutely true. I never said that it was a deterministic universe. Its an evolving universe that has certain habits, but in the main not wholly deterministic.

                            To conclude, you lastly address why you feel one can't predict future draws by looking at past draws, and that you are "pretty confident" in this feeling. Why? You say that, "if as you say, everything in the entire universe is "ALL IS ONE ENERGY", and interacts and affects each other, than just looking at past draws is simply not enough! If even a wisp of wind on a planet in a galaxy far away could affect us, and affect the draw, well, I highly doubt that simply looking at the numbers from past draws would be sufficient.

                            Yoho I submit that one doesn't have to figure out if the proverbial "wisp of wind on a planet in a galaxy far away" will affect the draw. The draw that appears already moves and is in harmony with all the draws that fell before it and is in harmony with all the draws that will fall in the future. Whatever may affect a draw is already accounted for, and will manifest itself in the numerical appearance of the draw. Every time a number is draw, the lottery pivots around that number, keeping its sense proportion of what has already fallen. To answer your question, how do I know that past draws affect the current draw, I can only say that I promise you with all the sincere and sober clarity I can muster that my research has shown this to be the case. Furthermore, its unerring, at least as it concerns the Pick 3, because that is my main focus for now. Yet, in a cursory fashion, I do notice its true for the pick 4 as well, and I strongly assume its true for the Pick 5, 6 and jackpot games. There you have it....

                            Thanks for the energetic exchange yoho, I enjoyed it, and I wish you the very best of good luck !

                            May your numbers be true this day,

                            Kola

                            Legend says that The Craggy One was once asked about the Lottery Circle and the aged Lottery LoreKeeper whispered in his gravelly eloquence,"It is known among our kind that 2 successive draws are in reality the 2 center-points of 2 intersecting circles that share a common radius - a Root Center. This Vesica Piscis is the creative womb for all numbers, the Still Point from which two draws will unite & a new one is born. This "perfect" space is a wormhole through Time(Change). Master its proportions & your numerical predictions will not falter". 

                              CajunWin4's avatar - Lottery-061.jpg
                              Whiskey Island
                              United States
                              Member #90216
                              April 24, 2010
                              12740 Posts
                              Online
                              Posted: June 7, 2013, 1:10 am - IP Logged

                              To conclude:

                              In reference to the comments about the electron...While science has confirmed that we cannot determine both an electron's location and momentum. I don't know why you assume this means the location is "random". To assume so, seemingly contradicts the results shown in Double-slit Experiments that electrons have a measure of self-awareness.

                              I do agree that while "all is energy", it does not mean that its all precisely measurable. Its suffice to say though that the electron example is a commentary on the "very small", and probability of course decreases, whereas in the case of numbered lottery balls, the commentary is on the "very big" and probability increases....Its more or less 'different ball-games', no pun intended...

                              Your statement that "even if everything in the entire universe interacts and affects each other, saying that they AFFECT is completely different from saying that they DETERMINE", is absolutely true. I never said that it was a deterministic universe. Its an evolving universe that has certain habits, but in the main not wholly deterministic.

                              To conclude, you lastly address why you feel one can't predict future draws by looking at past draws, and that you are "pretty confident" in this feeling. Why? You say that, "if as you say, everything in the entire universe is "ALL IS ONE ENERGY", and interacts and affects each other, than just looking at past draws is simply not enough! If even a wisp of wind on a planet in a galaxy far away could affect us, and affect the draw, well, I highly doubt that simply looking at the numbers from past draws would be sufficient.

                              Yoho I submit that one doesn't have to figure out if the proverbial "wisp of wind on a planet in a galaxy far away" will affect the draw. The draw that appears already moves and is in harmony with all the draws that fell before it and is in harmony with all the draws that will fall in the future. Whatever may affect a draw is already accounted for, and will manifest itself in the numerical appearance of the draw. Every time a number is draw, the lottery pivots around that number, keeping its sense proportion of what has already fallen. To answer your question, how do I know that past draws affect the current draw, I can only say that I promise you with all the sincere and sober clarity I can muster that my research has shown this to be the case. Furthermore, its unerring, at least as it concerns the Pick 3, because that is my main focus for now. Yet, in a cursory fashion, I do notice its true for the pick 4 as well, and I strongly assume its true for the Pick 5, 6 and jackpot games. There you have it....

                              Thanks for the energetic exchange yoho, I enjoyed it, and I wish you the very best of good luck !

                              May your numbers be true this day,

                              Kola

                              Kola ,

                                         You're right on the money ! Know just figure out the right Data Matrix to use for game play . Is it in the last 50 , 100 , 500 , 1000 or the Whole Drawn Matrix.

                                     Kola-  "Whatever may affect a draw is already accounted for, and will manifest itself in the numerical appearance of the draw. Every time a number is draw, the lottery pivots around that number, keeping its sense proportion of what has already fallen. To answer your question, how do I know that past draws affect the current draw, I can only say that I promise you with all the sincere and sober clarity I can muster that my research has shown this to be the case. Furthermore, its unerring, at least as it concerns the Pick 3, because that is my main focus. Yet in a cursory fashion, I do notice its true for the pick 4 as well, and I strongly assume its true for the Pick 5, 6 and jackpot games as well. There you have it."

                                         A few of the Lottery Post members has already done this be it Pick 3 , Pick 4 or Jackpot games !

                                 
                                Page 13 of 34