Canada
Member #96,074
August 22, 2010
193 Posts
Offline
That's the problem with all systems - all lack consistency. Nothing wins forever, there are always ups and downs. The only solution for this I see is monitoring several prediction methods/systems, backtrack them, try different if options, if available, and pick the ones with the best CURRENT scores. Still no guarantee but chances for a winner should be increased, whatever the targeted winner is. That's the philosophy I subscribe to in any lottery - monitor many systems but play the current best performer. Worked for me in the past (to a degree, obviously).
mid-Ohio United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
20,272 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by aquariuslottery on Jul 1, 2015
That's the problem with all systems - all lack consistency. Nothing wins forever, there are always ups and downs. The only solution for this I see is monitoring several prediction methods/systems, backtrack them, try different if options, if available, and pick the ones with the best CURRENT scores. Still no guarantee but chances for a winner should be increased, whatever the targeted winner is. That's the philosophy I subscribe to in any lottery - monitor many systems but play the current best performer. Worked for me in the past (to a degree, obviously).
"the problem with all systems - all lack consistency. Nothing wins forever"
Consistency isn't the problem, winning one time is. A system for a jackpot game only has to work once. Brad Duke's system worked once and the rest is history.
A system is in a constant state of change based on its performance during the last drawing.
* you don't need to buy every combination, just the winning ones *
Canada
Member #96,074
August 22, 2010
193 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by RJOh on Jul 1, 2015
"the problem with all systems - all lack consistency. Nothing wins forever"
Consistency isn't the problem, winning one time is. A system for a jackpot game only has to work once. Brad Duke's system worked once and the rest is history.
A system is in a constant state of change based on its performance during the last drawing.
And there are many QP systems that work all the time as well, according to lottery statistics and winners interviews. Brad Duke's system worked and gazillion of similar others didn't. Rabbit foot syndrom, I presume; as you said earlier a necessary ingredient for hitting the Big Jack.
In jackpot games I concentrate less on a jackpot as too dependent on the rabbit foot and pay more attention to smaller prizes with much better odds of winning, for the best ROI I can get. For this I need consistency and since no single system will provide it I monitor and use many to have a choice. Incidentally, I don't believe this reduces my chances for Big Jack, rabbit foot or not. For me ROI takes precedence in any type of lottery and if you want to play in a pool (which I did) providing best ROI under circumstances is the necessary ingredient to recruit and maintain its members. Show me the money method works everywhere.
Therefore, it depends on strategy you adopt in playing. If you concentrate exclusively on jackpot even QP will do. But I also add ROI as an additional goal and this makes it a different ball game.
From what you say in the last sentence Brad Duke subscribes to the same philosophy as I do - in lottery only the latest trends count, the rest is history. Because selection of numbers is based only on short term trends and nothing else. The trick is to identify these trends as they constantly fluctuate.
mid-Ohio United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
20,272 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by aquariuslottery on Jun 29, 2015
Why don't you re-write you program in other language? Plenty of choices these days and syntax is quite often similar. Once you learn logic of programming, syntax and porting from language to another is a peanut. I started my lottery programs with interpreted Basic (don't even remember its version), then moved to compiled C, then to C# and now Android. Only the last 2 are now supported and I love C# but had to move to Android because this is where the future of computing is. So, if your program had a potential based on past performance why do you give it up? Even if you don't plan to distribute it it may help you to hit something. Designer of the system knows the best what it can potentially do.
I was thinking about your suggestion when I read some other members posts about VesaBet and Gail Howard old programs which are still for sale on the Internet and I started wondering why hadn't they done that. After all their customers are depending on them.
Both vendors put a lot in their websites and I would think they had at least as much resources as I do and yet they've done nothing to made their programs run in the newer versions of Windows. They both post notices that the consumers need to invest in an emulation program that will run programs that ran in older versions of Windows or Dos.
* you don't need to buy every combination, just the winning ones *