Welcome Guest
You last visited December 9, 2016, 6:28 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

# Stonito Lotto software

Topic closed. 17 replies. Last post 2 years ago by lottoarchitect.

 Page 2 of 2

Greece
Member #2815
November 18, 2003
502 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 22, 2015, 1:43 pm - IP Logged

The premise of all lottery matrix is randomness, else the game will be biased. Even if you assume the game is not random, any algorithm you come with will be purely a guess work.

I still haven't seen anyone offer proof that lotteries are pure random events, what all you people say is just your belief that it is pure random and those that attempted to predict using faulty approaches (AI, NN etc) conclude faulty results as well.

The keyword to your answer or proof is PREDICTION, am certain of 2+2=4, am certain of the linear equation x=y but am not certain of univariate x assuming different multivariate identities Y1....Yn. The ideal of testing on 'prior' should be questioned, since x and y are mutually exclusive. Let say a new lottery is introduced in your state with the matrix 8/49, how do  wage from the get-go without 'priors'. Lottery is not weather forecasting or  population census.If you think lottery is not random then try " forward-testing' your algorithm instead of 'Back-testing'.

Who said anything about back-testing? I talk about actual results of real play here, these are by definition "forward-testing". You can't be certain when you talk about prediction, where did this come from? If you know the equation in advance, then it is not prediction. 2+2=4 because we have defined it to be like that, pointless comment. You approach lottery prediction using multiple variables, you think it is an equation that has to be found. Lotteries do not work like that, sorry to disappoint you.

United States
Member #116344
September 8, 2011
3928 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 22, 2015, 2:20 pm - IP Logged

Who said anything about back-testing? I talk about actual results of real play here, these are by definition "forward-testing". You can't be certain when you talk about prediction, where did this come from? If you know the equation in advance, then it is not prediction. 2+2=4 because we have defined it to be like that, pointless comment. You approach lottery prediction using multiple variables, you think it is an equation that has to be found. Lotteries do not work like that, sorry to disappoint you.

If your data for testing is 'prior' then you're back-testing. I did not infer in my comment about finding equations or algorithms for predictions. You seem to have certainty how lottery should work, hence a different point of view is pointless. I subscribe to the event been random, this approach has work well in all my predictions in my numerous threads.

Greece
Member #2815
November 18, 2003
502 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 22, 2015, 2:34 pm - IP Logged

If your data for testing is 'prior' then you're back-testing. I did not infer in my comment about finding equations or algorithms for predictions. You seem to have certainty how lottery should work, hence a different point of view is pointless. I subscribe to the event been random, this approach has work well in all my predictions in my numerous threads.

Again, I do not talk about testing on existing data, I talk about real play results, this is forward-testing where data are unavailable when a prediction is made to estimate those same data. That's the whole point, isn't it? Results obtained on this forward-testing clearly suggest official lotteries performed in a barrel (that is important) are not that random.

 Page 2 of 2