Welcome Guest
You last visited December 7, 2016, 5:34 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

# I think the systems or methods for predicts the lottery is illusion.

Topic closed. 109 replies. Last post 2 years ago by diggindeeep.

 Page 2 of 8
Economy class
Belgium
Member #123700
February 27, 2012
4035 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 25, 2014, 5:00 am - IP Logged

So, easy.  Doing an "independent"/past-data-non-inclusive method, we do this (California D3):

1) Divide the pool of 1000 numbers into fourths (quadrants).

2) Fill out your fourth as all Straights.

3) Don't play, but wait until your quadrant has been out for eight times in a row, i.e., fully twice around the board.  This is to play it safe, and it may take a while to get there (you may also want to play it safer, and increase the amount of plays you have to wait; or, if you feel risky, wait less time).

4) Once that target is reached, you play them all at once, since the odds are highly in your favor.  A quadrant Straight payout will appx. double your money.

And here's two variations:

A) Simply apply the same standard to all four quadrants, and play each one as each one fires off.

B) Apply the law of averages to the moment of play.  e.g., if you like 90% odds, then play 225 of your 250 numbers; if you feel comfortable with 80% odds, then play 200; etc.

A simple, easy, effective... very expensive, and wholly "independent" strategy! You're welcome!

Indeed, you can't choose and play 50% of the combinations,
because with a win you risked 500 and you win back your 500.
So, you opted for playing a quarter of all combinations (1000/4=250).

You may feel more comfortable by playing after none of your 250 straight combinations came up for eight times,
but are you prepared to double the bet every time after that your quarter does not come up?
And do you realize the consequences?

Let's say that your randomly chosen quarter, 250 numbers,
just matched the distinct 250 last drawn straight drawn combinations.
That means that all the other quarters lost for 250 drawings in a row.

NASHVILLE, TENN
United States
Member #33372
February 20, 2006
1044 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 25, 2014, 7:42 am - IP Logged

So, easy.  Doing an "independent"/past-data-non-inclusive method, we do this (California D3):

1) Divide the pool of 1000 numbers into fourths (quadrants).

2) Fill out your fourth as all Straights.

3) Don't play, but wait until your quadrant has been out for eight times in a row, i.e., fully twice around the board.  This is to play it safe, and it may take a while to get there (you may also want to play it safer, and increase the amount of plays you have to wait; or, if you feel risky, wait less time).

4) Once that target is reached, you play them all at once, since the odds are highly in your favor.  A quadrant Straight payout will appx. double your money.

And here's two variations:

A) Simply apply the same standard to all four quadrants, and play each one as each one fires off.

B) Apply the law of averages to the moment of play.  e.g., if you like 90% odds, then play 225 of your 250 numbers; if you feel comfortable with 80% odds, then play 200; etc.

A simple, easy, effective... very expensive, and wholly "independent" strategy! You're welcome!

Dividing the pool into quadrants is one way of establishing a fixed reference point.  Nothing wrong with that kind of thinking.

Texas
United States
Member #150797
December 31, 2013
815 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 25, 2014, 8:22 am - IP Logged

I think "background independent" would have to involve discoveries about the nature of randomness itself, and the development of rules that could be applied in any situation involving randomness including, but not limited to, lotteries.

Any prediction that launches off the statistics of a specific game (the probability of any one of 250 Pick 3 combinations hitting within 9 games is 95%) would have to be considered "background dependent".

"There is no such thing as luck; only adequate or inadequate preparation to cope with a statistical universe."

~Robert A. Heinlein

Dallas, Texas
United States
Member #4549
May 2, 2004
1691 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 25, 2014, 8:51 am - IP Logged

Indeed, you can't choose and play 50% of the combinations,
because with a win you risked 500 and you win back your 500.
So, you opted for playing a quarter of all combinations (1000/4=250).

You may feel more comfortable by playing after none of your 250 straight combinations came up for eight times,
but are you prepared to double the bet every time after that your quarter does not come up?
And do you realize the consequences?

Let's say that your randomly chosen quarter, 250 numbers,
just matched the distinct 250 last drawn straight drawn combinations.
That means that all the other quarters lost for 250 drawings in a row.

Technically that wouldn't be background independent since you have some info, idea, facts, based on your knowledge of the game to implement this plan.

If you want to make it random. blindfold someone and let them throw darts at the quadrants. And don't let them know what you are doing. That prevents any bias toward an individual quadrant.

My greatest accomplishment is teaching cats about Vienna Sausage. When I need a friend, all I need do is walk outside, pop open a can, and every little critter in the neighborhood drops by to say "Hi!"

NASHVILLE, TENN
United States
Member #33372
February 20, 2006
1044 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 25, 2014, 9:36 am - IP Logged

I think "background independent" would have to involve discoveries about the nature of randomness itself, and the development of rules that could be applied in any situation involving randomness including, but not limited to, lotteries.

Any prediction that launches off the statistics of a specific game (the probability of any one of 250 Pick 3 combinations hitting within 9 games is 95%) would have to be considered "background dependent".

Tialuvslotto, you are right.  Statistics might be a clue to converting  background independent to background dependent.  Now the trick will be to discover the correct statistics and putting them into a profitable order.  I had not thought of doing that.  Thanks for the tip.

NASHVILLE, TENN
United States
Member #33372
February 20, 2006
1044 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 25, 2014, 9:43 am - IP Logged

Technically that wouldn't be background independent since you have some info, idea, facts, based on your knowledge of the game to implement this plan.

If you want to make it random. blindfold someone and let them throw darts at the quadrants. And don't let them know what you are doing. That prevents any bias toward an individual quadrant.

This post gave me two thoughts.  First, we need some info, idea, facts to go from dependent to independent.  Just what those parameters might be is another matter.

As for quadrant, why not make the population of each quadrant random?  Each quadrant is populated with 250 random combinations.  After the initial population, each quadrant is set in stone and only the quadrant is tracked.  Would one quadrant "hit" more often than any other?  I don't know but such information would be nice to know.

Dallas, Texas
United States
Member #4549
May 2, 2004
1691 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 25, 2014, 10:11 am - IP Logged

This post gave me two thoughts.  First, we need some info, idea, facts to go from dependent to independent.  Just what those parameters might be is another matter.

As for quadrant, why not make the population of each quadrant random?  Each quadrant is populated with 250 random combinations.  After the initial population, each quadrant is set in stone and only the quadrant is tracked.  Would one quadrant "hit" more often than any other?  I don't know but such information would be nice to know.

That's an excellent improvement. Kudos. It would be an interesting study.

My greatest accomplishment is teaching cats about Vienna Sausage. When I need a friend, all I need do is walk outside, pop open a can, and every little critter in the neighborhood drops by to say "Hi!"

Simi Valley, CA
United States
Member #156940
July 4, 2014
671 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 25, 2014, 10:13 am - IP Logged

This post gave me two thoughts.  First, we need some info, idea, facts to go from dependent to independent.  Just what those parameters might be is another matter.

As for quadrant, why not make the population of each quadrant random?  Each quadrant is populated with 250 random combinations.  After the initial population, each quadrant is set in stone and only the quadrant is tracked.  Would one quadrant "hit" more often than any other?  I don't know but such information would be nice to know.

I think it would depend on the concentration of digits in which particular quadrant appeared.  The game (in CA at least) works off an algorithm that (I believe) is designed, in part, to create both overrepresented digits and outliers—which would result in the sections of some pools being overrepped, and others rarely arising.

When you divide the pool into orderly sets based on digits, you discover both these long outliers, and the rapid-fires.  An intelligence doesn't emerge, but something at play other than pure randomness certainly does.

But here's a clue: How does the game know that a number is trending, another is cold?  In a purely random universe, it couldn't—dice don't know what's been rolled before.  An algorithm can't exist in a purely random universe: it must rely on past data (redundant?) to determine the next play.

So think about it... what, specifically, does it know? A previously played digit?  A previously played set? Multiple sets? Going back how far? And what does the game do with what it knows?

Can we learn these things?

Dallas, Texas
United States
Member #4549
May 2, 2004
1691 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 25, 2014, 11:25 am - IP Logged

I think it would depend on the concentration of digits in which particular quadrant appeared.  The game (in CA at least) works off an algorithm that (I believe) is designed, in part, to create both overrepresented digits and outliers—which would result in the sections of some pools being overrepped, and others rarely arising.

When you divide the pool into orderly sets based on digits, you discover both these long outliers, and the rapid-fires.  An intelligence doesn't emerge, but something at play other than pure randomness certainly does.

But here's a clue: How does the game know that a number is trending, another is cold?  In a purely random universe, it couldn't—dice don't know what's been rolled before.  An algorithm can't exist in a purely random universe: it must rely on past data (redundant?) to determine the next play.

So think about it... what, specifically, does it know? A previously played digit?  A previously played set? Multiple sets? Going back how far? And what does the game do with what it knows?

Can we learn these things?

Naturally expectations say quadrant with the most sums between 8 and 20 would rise above the others. If any single quadrant has all sums between 12-15 the others would be dust during a normal cycle.

Of course you could prevent that by randomly placing sum sets 13, 14,15, 12, etc, in each quadrant but then you are bringing order to the chaos disrupting the randomness you are trying to achieve.

My greatest accomplishment is teaching cats about Vienna Sausage. When I need a friend, all I need do is walk outside, pop open a can, and every little critter in the neighborhood drops by to say "Hi!"

Texas
United States
Member #86154
January 30, 2010
1648 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 25, 2014, 12:09 pm - IP Logged

The different systems and / or methods to predict the lottery numbers are an illusion, I do not think there is a real method to predict the lottery.

Your reasoning does have limited merit. If you're talking about the large JP-style games, then it is an illusion to believe that a system can accurately predict and produce a win. The caveat to this, though, is ironic in that it actually can be done with an extremely hefty amount of money, time, and the tedious efforts of preparing all the tickets. It can be done and a former poster here by the name of Ronnie316 actually proved it. I give credit where it's due.

There are other stories of how groups of very intelligent people combined their collective talents and actually won jackpots. It costed some REAL money to do it and they knew it while going in…which is the key. All these games, larger and small, revolve around a pre-set amount of total combinations based on the range of numbers utilized…i.e (1-56). If, and this is a HUGE if, you could convince a bank to loan you the money to cover the total amount of combinations and prove success, then you'd be ready. For example, if there are seven-teen million total combinations and it costs \$1 for each combination, all you'd need to do is simply wait for the jackpot to reach something reasonably over \$17M and you'd profit the rest. There would tax liabilities which would mean you'd definitely need to win enough to have something left over after all that.

So, with this in mind, how much simpler can it be to win on a little 0-9 Pick 3 game…and do it with precision and repeatability? The difference in this game and the JP game is that there's a fixed amount you can win which means you cannot play all the possible combinations and still profit. You must narrow down your list to what you deem able to land a hit and still turn a profit….and be able to do it again. It is absolutely doable and people prove it daily…here and elsewhere. I did it twice yesterday. It's not cheap to make this kind of money but, lots of people think otherwise. Most anything with pre-set numerical parameters can be mastered…it's all in the mathematics

L.L.

Small games, frequent wins, and regular payouts 'cause.....

There are seven days in the week...'Someday' isn't one of them.

#lotto-4-a-living

Economy class
Belgium
Member #123700
February 27, 2012
4035 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 25, 2014, 12:50 pm - IP Logged

Technically that wouldn't be background independent since you have some info, idea, facts, based on your knowledge of the game to implement this plan.

If you want to make it random. blindfold someone and let them throw darts at the quadrants. And don't let them know what you are doing. That prevents any bias toward an individual quadrant.

Background or not, random combined to 50% payout, I think that you cannot keep up financially after losses. To my thinking the payout is just lowered to the point that you cannot win. If you choose randomly or if you pick my picks, both have their chance. If you estimate that I make more chances than randomly picked numbers, then thank you. I cannot test it, ten combinations is the limit, and other ideas like posting for a year doesn't work either.

The point above was that you can't go for that bet after 8 fails. It doesn't mean that it couldn't win, but I wouldn't risk it! Indeed, you let the computer or someone generate randomly 250 combinations, and you apply the proposed theory. You got that right. Forget quadrant, take any quarter of thousand. If the theory would be right, any 250 combinations will do. As it is false, this won't do.

Economy class
Belgium
Member #123700
February 27, 2012
4035 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 25, 2014, 1:03 pm - IP Logged

The idea is as old as the history of games. If you want to calculate any quarter, you need for just one any quarter C(1000,250). I am not even finishing the mathematical algorithm! One quarter with 4,8228E+242 possible compositions of numbers. Mathematics is the shortcut, but you cannot produce the list. Going deeper into simulations, you might need a super computer that might exist in how many years? Finally knowing everything, random combined to the lower payouts would bite off a piece of yourself.

Simi Valley, CA
United States
Member #156940
July 4, 2014
671 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 25, 2014, 1:26 pm - IP Logged

All of this ordering of chaos is fraught with unseen perils. Here's an imperfect analogy….

Imagine a computer that randomly generates a number, but you don't know what it is. Neither do a set of players. They play with chips on a blank board, putting their chips in different locations. Some win depending on the unknown computer results, many lose. People start learning about places on this blank board to put their chips: in this area, that area. Sometimes here works better, but sometimes over there is best.

One day, it's revealed: the computer is actually playing Roulette, but using an algorithmic method to determine the number, instead of a spinning wheel. The blank board, suddenly becomes the checker red & black board, and the numbers are revealed; so are the rules, payouts, etc.

Suddenly the players know the rules. This would seem to be a great advantage… but is it? Because now, the players are left playing strategies based on these rules. Playing black, or red. Playing odd numbers, or even. Playing single numbers, odd sums, outliers, etc.

But with an algorithm in place, the outcome isn't random anymore—you could arguably say, it's pre-programmed. If you pick the WRONG thing to bank on—a complex strategy based on the color black, say—and red is set to go off—the best strategies in the world, fail you utterly.

So back to the advantage of not knowing so much about "the rules": you play more uncertain spreads, you play fuzzily, and so you don't limit yourself to single pre-losing approaches. And if you're pining for the good old days when you didn't know much and won more, well... it's very hard to unlearn something.

Which may all mean we're talking more about psychology, when it comes to games of chance, than even math or mysticism.

ORLANDO, FLORIDA
United States
Member #4924
June 3, 2004
5896 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 25, 2014, 1:37 pm - IP Logged

I'm throwing this in the ring, looking for feedback. There is a filter known as Clean Numbers, 492 single combos. In Fl Eve, they hit 50% of the time. Any suggestions on the best way to play these?

Economy class
Belgium
Member #123700
February 27, 2012
4035 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 25, 2014, 4:19 pm - IP Logged

I'm throwing this in the ring, looking for feedback. There is a filter known as Clean Numbers, 492 single combos. In Fl Eve, they hit 50% of the time. Any suggestions on the best way to play these?

I never heard of "single combos". What is that? What is it for?

 Page 2 of 8