Canada
Member #96,074
August 22, 2010
193 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by lottery-123 on Aug 29, 2017
I know that many players use calculations of high-low numbers, sums, odd even etc for choosing their numbers. Is this a good system? Thanks
I've been running a simulation for Wisconsin Pick 3 since November last year.
The purpose is to see which one of several prediction methods is the most effective in a long time span.
I use several prediction methods: hot (from hottest down), cold (from coldest up), repetitive (drawn frequently in short period of time), growing trend (best trenders in a given time), due to hit based on their current average frequency and overdue (not drawn the longest).
Logically they should have the same (or at least similar) probability to produce winners. That's the theory. Surprisingly, that's not the case. Not even close.
Results are computed weekly - how many winners each prediction method produced in a week. The best performer is then selected as a winner for the given week.
Surprise, surprise! Hot and cold numbers absolutely DOMINATE the winners, particularly in the past 6 months. Additionally, cold numbers appear to perform better than the hot ones which is a big surprise to me as I almost worshipped the hots but after compiling these stats not anymore. So far due to hit numbers, followed closely by the overdue, are total losers, playing them would be a waste of money.
Clearly, what statistically may appear similar in respect of probability may not stand in real life test. So, if you do any analysis of statistically predictive methods you need a real time simulation to verify your methods before you attempt to play them in real life. You may be surprised by the results as I was.
Additional explanation: hot numbers are not exclusively hot and cold are not exclusively cold; they are mixtures of hot and warm and cold and warm numbers respectively. Some time ago someone on LP tried similar approach (mixing different frequencies) and reported improved scoring. Seems to be in line with my findings.
Dump Water Florida United States
Member #380
June 5, 2002
3,589 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by lottery-123 on Aug 29, 2017
I know that many players use calculations of high-low numbers, sums, odd even etc for choosing their numbers. Is this a good system? Thanks
In lottery software these are filters. In the better software enough filters can be found to chip away at the lines like a sculptor chisels to find the object of art within. Get all filters correct a win is guaranteed and after the draw the software does an autopsy on request showing the exact filter settings that would have resulted in a winning line among the minimum number of lines. The problem is, winning the filter lottery is on a par with winning Pick-4 Straight.
Dominican Republic
Member #178,452
November 29, 2016
104 Posts
Offline
aquariuslottery, your message -also other messages posted to this thread- is very interesting. It seems that in practice, random is not always true random. However I have a few doubts: what are `due to hit numbers´?
On the other hand, about overdue numbers you say they are total losers, in such a sense...Would they be useful for discarding all of them from a pool? Also, in this same subjet: which steps would you follow in order to discard the maximum numbers possibles from a pool, or in game with a lot of numbers, like 6/49?
BobP: You mention some ´best software´ containing filters. In your opinion, what´s the best software?
Thank you very much for all your interesting posts.
Canada
Member #96,074
August 22, 2010
193 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by lottery-123 on Sep 6, 2017
aquariuslottery, your message -also other messages posted to this thread- is very interesting. It seems that in practice, random is not always true random. However I have a few doubts: what are `due to hit numbers´?
On the other hand, about overdue numbers you say they are total losers, in such a sense...Would they be useful for discarding all of them from a pool? Also, in this same subjet: which steps would you follow in order to discard the maximum numbers possibles from a pool, or in game with a lot of numbers, like 6/49?
BobP: You mention some ´best software´ containing filters. In your opinion, what´s the best software?
Thank you very much for all your interesting posts.
What I do in my simulation is to operate on 10 Pick 3 numbers, not combinations. I stated this before and repeat again - being successful in lottery depends on ability to predict the numbers correctly. That's the basis. And in Pick 3 what is easier to predict - numbers out of Pick 3 pool of 10 or combinations out of 1000? Sorry for asking such stupid questions but that's how I perceive logic.
Instead of looking for the perfect combo each and every time I look at 0 to 9 numbers. Compile their statistics and then make a choice which ones to use.
Somebody stated on LP that it's best to work with groups of numbers. I agree. So, depending on my selection criteria I eliminate some numbers from the pool of 10 and retain others. My simulations show that the best results are obtained when using 8 or 7 numbers out of the Pick 3 10 numbers. Obviously these numbers have to be wheeled to create combinations of 3.
If I use 8 numbers out of 10 for playing I must hit all 3 numbers in the combination drawn. If I miss only one I'm toast. However, in reality it's not as bad as it may sound. Statistically, with 8 numbers, my winning probability is 51% for singles and 64% for doubles. That's not too bad.
However, another factor comes into play - targeting. Am I playing for singles or doubles? I play either one or the other but not both at the same time. This definitely adds to the level of difficulty. Statistically singles constitute 72% of all combinations and doubles 27%. That's the theory. In reality there might be wild variations from these averages.
My simulation uses Wisconsin Pick 3. Recently, as of August 20th, the stats for that lottery going back 30 draws were 13 singles (44%) and 17 doubles (56%); going back only 20 draws it was 6 singles (30%) and 14 doubles (70%). Such wild swings do not make gambler's life easier, do they? Any system that accounts only for singles (and there were many proposed on LP) would be a total disaster in these time periods. So I have to watch not only what numbers I play but also what I target.
Simulations indicate that since November last year the due-to-hit numbers (numbers that should be drawn now based on their recent frequency) and overdue numbers (the ones waiting to be drawn the longest) generated not too many winners. Is this a permanent trend or temporary fluke - I don't know. Whichever way, at this moment and for this lottery (Wisconsin Pick 3) I would not use these methods for real playing. Unless the scores improve but I haven't seen that happen yet.
Years ago I played Canadian 6/49 for real. I used the same strategies as currently for Pick 3 - eliminate certain numbers out of the pool of 49 and wheel the remainder to create tickets of 6. My target was not the jackpot but smaller prizes. We played (it was 10-member pool and I ran it) consistently twice a week ($40 worth of tickets each time) for 6 months. We did not hit JP but our ROI was 54% - half of what we spent we got back. Not much glory to bask in but not a disaster either.
