Quote: Originally posted by garyo1954 on Oct 24, 2015
This is a strange post on several levels.
In your prior post you say everything we're discussing is "Greek" to you. Like the French police detective told the girl in the Transporter film, "Before you cook the fish, you much catch the fish." And I think the same holds true here, before you dismiss an idea, you should understand it. What don't you understand?
I have no problem with your refusal to use pretest draws, but the question arises: Since the pretests are done with the machine and ball set used for the live drawing, how can there be a disconnect? What contamination is being introduced by using one set of balls and one machine, drawing six sets of numbers and calling the last set the live draw? Are you suggesting the Lottery Commission is being less than truthful about five sets of numbers that mean absolutely nothing?
There was a time I frowned on pretests too. But after running pretest separate from live draws and with live draws and comparing those with results from the overall matrix many, many times, I've rarely seen more than a few percentage point difference in any of the results. To use pretests, or not to use pretests is only going to affect the results when you have very small amounts of data to work with, such as 22 draws. But with 22 draws much of the data is unknown and all results are skewed in one way or another unless you extrapolate and compare them to a larger set,in this case, the matrix.
Since they are using the same machine, same ball set, why, other than personal preference, should those sets be ignored? Does it matter if the machine and ball set were set aside for two hours before the live draw, or perhaps two weeks between usage?
And if you've ever built anything you know that no matter how hard to try no two of anything is exactly identical. Each item will have its own feel, "personality" so to speak. In that way, would you not have a disconnect between each machine? And each ball set? So then we have to make charts for all the ball sets and machines so that data for machine A doesn't get contaminated by data from machine B. And we have to make sure ball sets 1 through 8 have their own charts with the proper machine to eliminate any possible disconnect.
Of course, unless you look at the pretest page, you can't tell which ball sets have been used in the last 5 draws. Or which machine. And where people have made that argument, no one has ever produced statistics that show any specific machine or ball set combination offers any advantage.
But if you have any tangible proof of a disconnect, please post it. It would enlighten all of us who spend a great deal of time charting statistics of many games.
Since the player only gets to choose 7 numbers, charting 10 numbers is unnecessary. Why make work, when there is enough dealing with 7? 7 is all you need to win. 7 is all you get to mark on your playslip, so 7 is enough. And as has been shown concentrating on 7 of 35 does not reduce the odds of hitting a jackpot.
Don't get me wrong, I understand your affinity for this particular means of arriving at your combinations. It's much the same as RL, RJOH, and I have all admitted: We still do much of our coding they way we learned to code. It's not always progressive, or nice, neat, and up to date, but it gets the job done. So I understand how you feel when people introduce new ideas to streamline your approach.
People need tangible reasons to use a cumbersome, time consuming method to do something when offered a much cleaner, faster solution.
Sorry.