Welcome Guest
You last visited August 19, 2017, 12:31 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

# 8 x 15 (Pick 3)

Topic closed. 52 replies. Last post 3 years ago by adobea78.

 Page 4 of 4
Simi Valley, CA
United States
Member #156940
July 4, 2014
715 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 29, 2014, 12:24 am - IP Logged

Thanks for the great input, lakerben, adobea, et. al.  I actually tried experimenting with the WinD charts that Blacapple reposted, going back a little ways... it proves intriguing, but not as helpful as imagined.  It's not much different from a standard slicing of the 120 boxes based on number-order running 0-9 (that one's better only for revealing things about the game and how it works, imho).

However, it did lead me to think... maybe there's something being overlooked here by me: anything you slice into pieces, now has x number of pieces.  We do this with various things (pairs, sums, etc.), then we track the pieces: piece x1, piece x2, piece x3, etc.

The idea of dividing the pool up into these "random" parts was so as to pin the game down and not create as few as possible anomalous events, obviously.  So, there's now the idea of linking boxes with other boxes that would pin the game down. Linking, pieces.

But couldn't we do an entire spider's web of linkages? Of pinning x1 to x2... and x3, and x4... and x2 to x3 and x4, etc.

You do a gigantic spider's web of dependant linkages: pairs, boxes, positions, sums, etc.  No more measuring just one X, but Xa-Xb, Xa-Xb-Xc, etc.

You might end up with hundreds of linkages - and, most of the time, they might be, say, green for Ordinary.  But maybe, just maybe, every single play would reveal—somewhere in the vast web of data—an orange for, Watch!, or a red for: Warning! Play immanent!  Maybe pairs 12 and 40 and 87, say, have never gone X number of plays without appearing. Basically: tying pieces to one another, so that they're now dependent for plays, even if (usually the case) only as groups: one piece pulling another along, because it must.

One would have, then, one pair measures; two; three; five; ten.  Hundreds of interweaving pair measurements alone.  Not including all the other data measurements!

A D3 V'ger, in other words.

Can one reduce any game of chance down to its atomic elements?  I dunno... maybe?...

United States
Member #155994
June 5, 2014
497 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 31, 2014, 11:38 pm - IP Logged

Question: Has anyone done this before? Is it possible? And would it even be helpful, or completely useless?

I guess that's three questions, actually….

I've utilized a variation of this myself. This centers on non-doubles/non-triples boxes only, in the Daily 3 game (California, which uses an algorithm method).

1) First, you take all 120 possible boxes, running in lowest-to-highest order. (Here's one site that can easily calculate and lay them out for you, using letters: http://www.mathsisfun.com/combinatorics/combinations-permutations-calculator.html )

2) You divide them into 15 sets of 8 ( = 120). However, HOW you divide them, is key—back to this in a minute.

3) You basically track them like you track anything else, seeing what set of boxes is due or not, over a series of plays.

But here's where a math expert's required, not me rummaging around: How would you divide the sets of boxes, PERFECTLY equally? All sets would contain the same number of different digits, or as close as possible; everything would be perfectly even, but not so perfect, or pattern-inducing, as to seem like groupings: all would appear to be a jumble, but would actually be as even a distribution as possible of all similarities in each set.  (Maybe there are mathematical models/formulas/theories/etc. already, for doing this?)

The reason for this, is so that the game can't—or as little as possible—create anomalous "long outs," that cause players to chase endlessly & needlessly after "dues."

The overall purpose would be to, as much as possible, limit the variance between each one firing off, having one of its 8 boxes hit.  It would probably be best in only pursuing "outs": but the pursuit, done right, would be drastically limited (right?).

I figure 8 is the perfect amount of such sets: not too many as to be unwieldy, not too few as to create endlessly long "outs." KEY, most important: totally "mixed up" so as to not allow the algorithm to escape to groupings and trendings and other evasions.

…? Useful, or just stupid?

Well, you have the right idea. This all goes back to what I've been saying about group-tracking. This is the only real answer. You have to track the numbers in terms of groups. However, 15 sets are just too many.

United States
Member #155994
June 5, 2014
497 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 31, 2014, 11:49 pm - IP Logged

You are making Pick 3 too difficult.  The game is Not Rocket ScienceDon't go there.  You don't need to play a large group of numbers to win.

You sound very intelligent.  Has it ever occurred to you to wonder how it is that some people can win Pick 3 or Pick 4, by playing as few numbers as a VTAC string, or even less. Pick 3 VTRAC = 8 numbers. Pick 4 VTRAC = 16 numbers.

I would aim for "EVEN LESS".  Figure that out.

What you say goes against logic and common sense. What do these peoples' wins and losses look like? Sure, they'll do better than someone not using any system. But, can they win consistently and reliably?

Simi Valley, CA
United States
Member #156940
July 4, 2014
715 Posts
Offline
 Posted: September 1, 2014, 12:11 pm - IP Logged

I keep inputting the numbers into this eviscerated full singles box set, and I must admit I do notice, that the "long outs" don't stay out too long.

That is, a set will be out for a long period occasionally... but not as long as other "long out" sets are out!

But is this innovative or insightful, or is it just basic rules of probability?  If the whole is sliced into larger pieces, of course they're not going to be out any longer.

So the experiment at the moment remains inconclusive... still, when another one's immanent, I'll post it in "Bands on the Run" in the Systems thread.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your picks don't hit immediately, sometimes they take a while.  Not attacking it at all (I actually think your system's fairly brilliant), just asking... why do you think that is?

There has to be a reason, right?  For everything?  Why does some plays take a few steps, or many steps; whereas others take but one step to a hit?

Shouldn't any system ask this question?  Why shouldn't my choice, or pool of choices, hit the very next play?  Or, why did my choices not hit this time?

I run off a theory that there's a limited pool of numbers from which the game picks its First number (see my thread in the Mathematics forum); therefore, if you don't pick one of those numbers - let's say they were 1, 2, 3, 4 - the best system on Earth can't avail you.  Or, if a double is ABSOLUTELY coming next (and I think there are ways you can almost say this with certainty), then the best system on Earth for a singles pick can't avail you.  And so on.

I may be wrong in my assumptions... but it does go to addressing why something I expected, didn't happen.

Every play, I analyze: Where did I miss this?  What did the game do?  Did the game do something completely logical, rational, expected?  There's always going to be a pool of choices from which to choose, but I don't believe it's that vast from play to play.  So why did I miss the pool entirely this time?

Pure luck?  Purely a bad choice?  Nope... or not entirely.  It had to be I wasn't paying full attention to the play, to the trends, the patterns, the motion, of the whole.

United States
Member #116344
September 8, 2011
4066 Posts
Offline
 Posted: September 1, 2014, 1:00 pm - IP Logged

I keep inputting the numbers into this eviscerated full singles box set, and I must admit I do notice, that the "long outs" don't stay out too long.

That is, a set will be out for a long period occasionally... but not as long as other "long out" sets are out!

But is this innovative or insightful, or is it just basic rules of probability?  If the whole is sliced into larger pieces, of course they're not going to be out any longer.

So the experiment at the moment remains inconclusive... still, when another one's immanent, I'll post it in "Bands on the Run" in the Systems thread.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your picks don't hit immediately, sometimes they take a while.  Not attacking it at all (I actually think your system's fairly brilliant), just asking... why do you think that is?

There has to be a reason, right?  For everything?  Why does some plays take a few steps, or many steps; whereas others take but one step to a hit?

Shouldn't any system ask this question?  Why shouldn't my choice, or pool of choices, hit the very next play?  Or, why did my choices not hit this time?

I run off a theory that there's a limited pool of numbers from which the game picks its First number (see my thread in the Mathematics forum); therefore, if you don't pick one of those numbers - let's say they were 1, 2, 3, 4 - the best system on Earth can't avail you.  Or, if a double is ABSOLUTELY coming next (and I think there are ways you can almost say this with certainty), then the best system on Earth for a singles pick can't avail you.  And so on.

I may be wrong in my assumptions... but it does go to addressing why something I expected, didn't happen.

Every play, I analyze: Where did I miss this?  What did the game do?  Did the game do something completely logical, rational, expected?  There's always going to be a pool of choices from which to choose, but I don't believe it's that vast from play to play.  So why did I miss the pool entirely this time?

Pure luck?  Purely a bad choice?  Nope... or not entirely.  It had to be I wasn't paying full attention to the play, to the trends, the patterns, the motion, of the whole.

There is no certainty in life, for that matter asymmetric event like lottery, my only leverage  is degree of confidence and Prediction Interval. If you have a degree of confidence > 50%, then time frame should be a critical factor in waging strategy.I am not bothered by stats, return digits or favorite digits(less stressful approach,in my opinion), my approach is based on concepts.

NB> Take a look at predictions on this thread with the time frame 500/#picks with the assumption of multiple hits or recover, 500/#picks statement reflects that degree of confidence, is left to the wager to factor in when waging, the assumptions has been verified countless times.

Simi Valley, CA
United States
Member #156940
July 4, 2014
715 Posts
Offline
 Posted: September 1, 2014, 2:34 pm - IP Logged

There is no certainty in life, for that matter asymmetric event like lottery, my only leverage  is degree of confidence and Prediction Interval. If you have a degree of confidence > 50%, then time frame should be a critical factor in waging strategy.I am not bothered by stats, return digits or favorite digits(less stressful approach,in my opinion), my approach is based on concepts.

NB> Take a look at predictions on this thread with the time frame 500/#picks with the assumption of multiple hits or recover, 500/#picks statement reflects that degree of confidence, is left to the wager to factor in when waging, the assumptions has been verified countless times.

Maybe that's the secret after all, Adobea.  Data is data, and your seems pretty air tight.

I really should measure my own success rate, vs. pure random luck. If each box single represents .06%, and every box double .03%, of the available pool, then I should be able to do a success comparison between the choices I make, and spending the same amount on quick picks.  I'm scared what I'd come up with!

---------------

Back to the original thread... now, I'm about to make an elaborate and unfunny joke (i.e., I'm not serious about this), but... the question that covers the following scenario is this: Why not try it?

1) Concentrating purely on singles, divide the 120 boxes up into groups of 10: 12 sets now.

2) Label then A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, and Z (that last one's just to be perverse about things).

3) Begin measuring the gaps between each group firing off: A took 5 plays before it hit, then 2, then 0, then 6, etc.

You know, all the normal standard type of measurements stuff.

But then...

4) Start measuring the gaps between the gaps between them firing off.  Between a 0 and another 0, it was 4, then 8, then 1; etc.

5) Then, start measuring the gaps between the gaps between the gaps between them firing off. It was 2 plays before it was 1 play before it was 4 plays to a group hitting.

6) Keep going!

...

ORLANDO, FLORIDA
United States
Member #4924
June 3, 2004
6112 Posts
Offline
 Posted: September 1, 2014, 5:38 pm - IP Logged

Maybe that's the secret after all, Adobea.  Data is data, and your seems pretty air tight.

I really should measure my own success rate, vs. pure random luck. If each box single represents .06%, and every box double .03%, of the available pool, then I should be able to do a success comparison between the choices I make, and spending the same amount on quick picks.  I'm scared what I'd come up with!

---------------

Back to the original thread... now, I'm about to make an elaborate and unfunny joke (i.e., I'm not serious about this), but... the question that covers the following scenario is this: Why not try it?

1) Concentrating purely on singles, divide the 120 boxes up into groups of 10: 12 sets now.

2) Label then A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, and Z (that last one's just to be perverse about things).

3) Begin measuring the gaps between each group firing off: A took 5 plays before it hit, then 2, then 0, then 6, etc.

You know, all the normal standard type of measurements stuff.

But then...

4) Start measuring the gaps between the gaps between them firing off.  Between a 0 and another 0, it was 4, then 8, then 1; etc.

5) Then, start measuring the gaps between the gaps between the gaps between them firing off. It was 2 plays before it was 1 play before it was 4 plays to a group hitting.

6) Keep going!

...

Why not track them by LDS?

 Sum Last Digit: 0 12 10.0% 019 028 037 046 127 136 145 235 389 479 569 578 1 12 10.0% 029 038 047 056 128 137 146 236 245 489 579 678 2 12 10.0% 039 048 057 129 138 147 156 237 246 345 589 679 3 12 10.0% 012 049 058 067 139 148 157 238 247 256 346 689 4 12 10.0% 013 059 068 149 158 167 239 248 257 347 356 789 5 12 10.0% 014 023 069 078 159 168 249 258 267 348 357 456 6 12 10.0% 015 024 079 123 169 178 259 268 349 358 367 457 7 12 10.0% 016 025 034 089 124 179 269 278 359 368 458 467 8 12 10.0% 017 026 035 125 134 189 279 369 378 459 468 567 9 12 10.0% 018 027 036 045 126 135 234 289 379 469 478 568

or

Key Numbers

 Key Numbers: 0 36 30.0% 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 023 024 025 026 027 028 029 034 035 036 037 038 039 045 046 047 048 049 056 057 058 059 067 068 069 078 079 089 1 36 30.0% 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 134 135 136 137 138 139 145 146 147 148 149 156 157 158 159 167 168 169 178 179 189 2 36 30.0% 012 023 024 025 026 027 028 029 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 234 235 236 237 238 239 245 246 247 248 249 256 257 258 259 267 268 269 278 279 289 3 36 30.0% 013 023 034 035 036 037 038 039 123 134 135 136 137 138 139 234 235 236 237 238 239 345 346 347 348 349 356 357 358 359 367 368 369 378 379 389 4 36 30.0% 014 024 034 045 046 047 048 049 124 134 145 146 147 148 149 234 245 246 247 248 249 345 346 347 348 349 456 457 458 459 467 468 469 478 479 489 5 36 30.0% 015 025 035 045 056 057 058 059 125 135 145 156 157 158 159 235 245 256 257 258 259 345 356 357 358 359 456 457 458 459 567 568 569 578 579 589 6 36 30.0% 016 026 036 046 056 067 068 069 126 136 146 156 167 168 169 236 246 256 267 268 269 346 356 367 368 369 456 467 468 469 567 568 569 678 679 689 7 36 30.0% 017 027 037 047 057 067 078 079 127 137 147 157 167 178 179 237 247 257 267 278 279 347 357 367 378 379 457 467 478 479 567 578 579 678 679 789 8 36 30.0% 018 028 038 048 058 068 078 089 128 138 148 158 168 178 189 238 248 258 268 278 289 348 358 368 378 389 458 468 478 489 568 578 589 678 689 789 9 36 30.0% 019 029 039 049 059 069 079 089 129 139 149 159 169 179 189 239 249 259 269 279 289 349 359 369 379 389 459 469 479 489 569 579 589 679 689 789

United States
Member #116344
September 8, 2011
4066 Posts
Offline
 Posted: September 1, 2014, 5:42 pm - IP Logged

Maybe that's the secret after all, Adobea.  Data is data, and your seems pretty air tight.

I really should measure my own success rate, vs. pure random luck. If each box single represents .06%, and every box double .03%, of the available pool, then I should be able to do a success comparison between the choices I make, and spending the same amount on quick picks.  I'm scared what I'd come up with!

---------------

Back to the original thread... now, I'm about to make an elaborate and unfunny joke (i.e., I'm not serious about this), but... the question that covers the following scenario is this: Why not try it?

1) Concentrating purely on singles, divide the 120 boxes up into groups of 10: 12 sets now.

2) Label then A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, and Z (that last one's just to be perverse about things).

3) Begin measuring the gaps between each group firing off: A took 5 plays before it hit, then 2, then 0, then 6, etc.

You know, all the normal standard type of measurements stuff.

But then...

4) Start measuring the gaps between the gaps between them firing off.  Between a 0 and another 0, it was 4, then 8, then 1; etc.

5) Then, start measuring the gaps between the gaps between the gaps between them firing off. It was 2 plays before it was 1 play before it was 4 plays to a group hitting.

6) Keep going!

...

When I predict a set 996 for exact bet, that's my expectation, no excuses for exit 696, saying the 9 was flipped is delusional, 6 is not 9!.In predicting, you have to be restrictive, if I have a hit ratio of 10% within a range of cycles, then capitalizing on 10% will pay off(Success rate). Are the posed questions 1,2,3 related to the POOL or chosen DATA?.Why not base all your assumptions, related parameters and conditions on the POOL?eg.,assuming three distinct digits are drawn each cycle, this infers 7C3(keyword is assumption) or sub of the POOL for successive cycle.

 Page 4 of 4