- After I have shaved off whatever numbers from my pool, when then choosing which numbers to play from the remaining pool, I would be favoring selection methods based on norms/averages.
- So for a sort of finale example, let's say hypothetically it is 5:39 game, and I am anticipating an anomaly of a number set ending in the 2's delta group, and so my numbers pool is 1-29. When it comes to which 5 numbers I choose from that pool, I would be splicing/layering together 'norm' patterns, such as:
- Evens/Odds
- Ratio of X Hits Ago for the Last Hit of Each Number
- Repeat Number vs No Repeat Number
- "Hopper" Number Vs No Hopper Number (Every-Other Pattern)
And so on.
- With the 'norm' patterns (or very soft anomalies) that I am layering onto a harder anomaly, I personally find that color-coding a drawings history helps me quite a bit, as I am likely very right-brain dominant, myself, quite a visual/artsy brain kind of person.
- So for example..
- I've got my pool down to 5:29 for the hypothetical 5:39 game from above. But now I am looking at it from a matter of, "Which of the delta groups are most due?" I would be looking at a much larger sample of past drawings, at least 100, but for simplicity's sake, let's say the 30 samples from above represent a much larger sample size. So now I am looking at the different delta groups, specifically 0, 1 and 2 (since I have shaved off the 3's).
00223
01122
01223
02333
12233
00013
00123
11122***
01233
00003
01133
00112
02233
11122***
00023
01223
00333
00113
12223***
11123
00013
00233
12223***
00112
02223***
00011
12333
11123***
00122
00003
0 Delta Group - 44 Hits
1 Delta Group - 35 Hits
2 Delta Group - 36 Hits
- What I perceive in these results, is that my 1's and 2's are both notably behind my 0's, even though my 0's are a smaller range (9 instead of 10 numbers). Therefore, I am likely to try to a pattern of 0xxx2, in which each x is either 1 or 2. Basically, going heavier on 1/2 than on 0.
- Let's say that hypothetically what I also notice, though, is that over the years, repeating or very close-together repeats of delta patterns are not the norm. So while the 1's and 2's are nearly tied currently, I wouldn't want to play 01122, because in our hypothetical game above, that pattern hit just 2 drawings ago.
- So now what I am anticipating is either 01222 or 01112. This is especially true, since in most draw games, things "evening out" is an anomaly unto itself, and usually the balance will tip shortly.
- So now I look at the history of 222 (***) and 111 (***). Based on the above (again with the assumption that these 30 samples are representing a larger sample size), I am now anticipating *** or 01222.
- This makes it a smoother process when I start looking at the other various current-qualities of numbers 1-29. For example, when doing the pattern of "last hit X times ago". If even X in this case can be broken up into ranges, say in ranges of 5 (A:1-5, B:6-10, C:11-15 and so on), and my best guess upon analyzing past results is that a pattern of ABBCC is coming up..
- Then out of 29 numbers, perhaps 13 will be A's, 7 will be B's, 6 will be C's and 3 will be D's.
- Those 3 "D" numbers can now also be shaved off the pool, so that it is down to 26 numbers total.
- Furthermore, I now also have smaller pools to work with for each 'slot' in the set. 1 from a pool of 13 (A), 2 from a pool of 7 (B), and 2 from a pool of 6 (C).
- I'm also getting nudged along by the other anticipated patters, again such as more evens than odds (or vice versa), repeat vs no repeat, hopper vs no hopper, consecutive pair vs none, etc. Thus the process of elimination just gets heavier and heavier until I am down to my set.