- Home
- Premium Memberships
- Lottery Results
- Forums
- Predictions
- Lottery Post Videos
- News
- Search Drawings
- Search Lottery Post
- Lottery Systems
- Lottery Charts
- Lottery Wheels
- Worldwide Jackpots
- Quick Picks
- On This Day in History
- Blogs
- Online Games
- Premium Features
- Contact Us
- Whitelist Lottery Post
- Rules
- Lottery Book Store
- Lottery Post Gift Shop
The time is now 1:50 am
You last visited
June 7, 2024, 12:51 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)
how could the computer find patterns in a lottery?Prev TopicNext Topic
-
Quote: Originally posted by bobby623 on Nov 2, 2018
One of the many benefits of being a daily LP visitor is being entertained by the many math-based theorums being offered as a way to win a lottery jackpot.
I don't claim to be one of the smartest cards in the deck, but I'm smart enough to know that if there is a mathematical solution to winning the lottery it would have been used to win either one of the recent high dollar jackpots.
A 'lucky shot' is possible in just abount any guessing game, but if that is true for any one of the many nationwide lottery games, the media hasn't discovered and reported it.
Face it - mathematics and computer software do not win lotteries.
The content of many of the posts being offered by mathematicians makes me wonder if the authors really know anything about how winning lottery numbers are determined.
Here is some basic information regarding the Texas Pick 6/54 lottery, which, by the way, was recently won with a Quick Pick, just like every other jackpot in the past 20 years or more.
Prior to the winning draw, the lottery conducts six pretests, which they say is necessary to ensure that the equipment is functioning properly.
Most lottery gamblers believe the tests are a ruse to distort or disrupt any useful trends that could pose a threat to the lottery's profit margins.
Regular viewing of actual drawings reveal several undeniable actions.
1. There is considerable chaos in the draw machine vessel.
2. That the 'exit gate' opens at irregular intervals.
3. The absence of any method or device that manages and determines which 6 of the dead as dirt 54 balls will pass through the gate and be declared the winning combination.
The mathematicians want us to believe that the 'chaos' in the vessel can be calculated in ways that will allow us to know, in advance, the identity of the six balls that will make it through the gate!!!
Sorry, guys, but that just doesn't compute.
BTW - The lottery game play slip arranges our choices in numerical order.One of the many benefits of being a daily LP visitor is being entertained by the many math-based theorums being offered as a way to win a lottery jackpot.
I don't claim to be one of the smartest cards in the deck, but I'm smart enough to know that if there is a mathematical solution to winning the lottery it would have been used to win either one of the recent high dollar jackpots.I've been so very patient in all this...up until now. bobby, just how do you think the that the lottery entities arrived at the 'odds and chances' part of the overall equation? Do you think they just decided on some random number to base their odds of winning versus their payouts on? Anything and, I repeat ANYTHING that is number-based has a standard numerical foundation by which PROFITS are calculated. If you have a 'fixed number or numbers' then, you have a basic mathematical starting point to develop a method to extrapolate fundamental information for gains. The fact that you see that no one applied math and money to the most recent jackpot to win it means absolutely diddley squat, my man! It would cost an unobtanium amount of both money and toil to develop all the tickets required to cover enough bets to win either PB or MM's, bobby. Get real. I notice, though, that you've never commented on how the MIT students master minded the Cash WinFall game with MATH compiled with finances to the point to where Massachusetts had to discontinue that game. No, you've never commented on that at all. Why, bobby? They also made it crystal clear that 'math' was the prerequisite to their success. Your response to this is now requested by me personally.
Face it - mathematics and computer software do not win lotteries.
We all know that math alone doesn't get win and I never said that it did. It's the compilation of it all, as a unit...a system, which is dictated by math which reveals how much needs to be spend in order to yield the best chance(s) of success.
Here is some basic information regarding the Texas Pick 6/54 lottery, which, by the way, was recently won with a Quick Pick, just like every other jackpot in the past 20 years or more.
The average player(s), even those with lots of money, just don't have the means to implement such a large scale system to win a 'regular' state lottery, bobby. Even with money being no object for say, a very successful business owner, there's still the extremely tedious issue of preparing all those tickets and, not to mention, then getting all those same tickets run through the terminals. It's not just a walk in the park trying to 'intentionally' win this type of large scale lottery, bobby, so please quit trying to drive home this point of 'if it were so simple, then they'd do it.'
Most lottery gamblers believe the tests are a ruse to distort or disrupt any useful trends that could pose a threat to the lottery's profit margins.
This requires more time than I'm willing to devote right now and, others have already discussed just what those pre tests allow to happen. Recently, several states had the exact same combination of individual numbers, in their same positions, return in the next so-called official draw results. Pick 3 and Pick 4. I'm in that 1% that likes to study the dynamics of this tool they use. In terms of disrupting profits, your comment here is laughable with respect to us being lottery cyber friends. *When you figure out what needs to be done via mathematics, secure and mark all the tickets you need, have all those tickets successfully run through the terminals, you end up doing exactly what the MIT guys did!! They directly interfered with the profits by exploiting the game's weakness via money compiled with the combinations and math. There was no substitution method available for what they master minded, bobby. It required math, sir.
The mathematicians want us to believe that the 'chaos' in the vessel can be calculated in ways that will allow us to know, in advance, the identity of the six balls that will make it through the gate!!!
There's no chaos in the vessel(s), bobby, only white balls clearly marked with black digits. Those digits are odd or even. They are high or low.
*In closing bobby, I urge you to please read the following article, in its entirety, which serves as one of the cornerstones for the MIT success. This is from 1992, my man:
https://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/25/us/group-invests-5-million-to-hedge-bets-in-lottery.html
*You will not find the word 'substitution' anywhere in this article regarding just how they managed to accomplish their feat. In fact, it's not in there at all and neither is math. However, the words combinations, tickets, investment, return,rate, percent, split, odds, yield, and many others are included here and all pointing at one thing............math.
I like you, bobby, but your argument about substitution would fall completely flat on any lottery mathematician's ears and that's according directly to this article.
Small games, frequent wins, and regular payouts 'cause.....
There are seven days in the week...'Someday' isn't one of them.
#lotto-4-a-living
-
I think most of the issue is in back testing each methodology against the history of draws.
For example if you follow Sums, the regression to see how many past draws are more ideal to use is different than the amount of past draws used to determine digit wise regression. Also the regression for the hot number or highest frequency numbers is a different amount of past draws than either of that prior two. This does give some degree of certainty, but you will still wind up with a set or given list of numbers to play. Not only that but you have for example some methods that wont work well with others or give you very diminished odds where they seem like they work on the surface they dont stand up to back testing.
-
Lucky Loser
One - an apology to 'dr san' for taking this thread in a different direction.
Two - I can't believe you can view an actual drawing and not see the 'chaos' caused by numerous balls being randomly disturbed by a mix of air, motion and paddles in an enclosed vessel.
Three - Yes, the MIT students applied various math-based theories to find and exploit weaknesses in a poorly designed lottery game. However, this was a one-time effort that required the participation and financial resources of many individuals, but one that probably won't be repeated.
I agree that mathematics had a major and significant role in the development of the MIT plan which, in my opinion, took advantage of possibilities that should have been discovered and eliminated by the mathematicians and engineers who created the game.
Four - Why is it that some mathematicians use the 'exceptions' to try and prove their points?
The exceptions that I know about are:
a. The players in PA who sprayed paint into 3 balls in a Pick 3 game. I believe they got caught and went to jail.
b. The Australians who bought all of the possible combinations in the Virginia lottery. They got away with it!
c. Ray Tipton who used his knowledge and ACCESS to rig games. He got caught and is in jail.
d. MIT students - They won a lot but I'm not sure of their current status.
e. There may be other 'exceptions' that are currently being used to win non-jackpot games.
We just have to rely on the lottery to uncover any illegal methods by investigating repeat winners.
Five - Why is it that no mathematician has ever demonstrated via an LP post how knowing the odds, probabilities, statistics and other math-based features can help average, everyday players actually win a significant lottery prize?
Despite all the the thousands of hits none of the formal software posted in LP has ever won anything of significance.
You obviously believe winning strategies based on mathematics exist but are not being posted to deter theft. You may be right, but we will never know for sure.
Six - I believe the pretest issue is overstated.
If you (generic) believe that each lottery drawing, including the pretests, is a separate event, then using the last, or official, draw to manage a workout makes sense.
Of course, folks, like yourself, who believe there is a connection are probably experiencing a lot of heart burn when predictions based on all drawings and the official draws seldom match. Unless, of course, as you have stated, the player is investing a lot of money buying a tub full of tickets.
Seven - I once believed that mathematics was the only way to win. However, I now believe that using math-based strategies is a loss waiting to happen.
You obviously disagree, and that's your right.
Eight - What is substitution?
As players, we can choose any method we think might provide consistent results with a small budget.
There are many strategies.
I choose substitution and it's working often enough to keep me interested.
Basically, I divide a game into 3 sections.
In other words, I use game history from three drawing machines.
In Pick 3, Machine A has three balls, Machine B has three balls, Machine C has four balls, including Zero.
I use various tracking charts to manage the Machine outputs in a way that generate data strings that, in turn, provide 'trends' that can be analyzed and used to choose integers for play one at a time.
In reply to 'dr san', I generate my own patterns.
There is no need for software to discover and track individual companions, pairs, triples, etc.
Yes, properly coded software can provide some possibilities, but, so what?
My method is a simple paper and pencil non-math-based process that I refer to as 'educated guesswork.'
You would be surprised at what you see when you take the time to analyze a game via small pieces rather than doing it 'en masse.'
Lucky Loser - lottery analysis is a 'to each his own' process.
We will never agree, but, different opinions do have value and contribute to our overall efforts to get a some of the millions of dollars lotteries are trying to give away every day.
I'm getting some now and then. Hope you are, too!
Thanks for your interest and good luck! -
Quote: Originally posted by Lucky Loser on Nov 3, 2018
One of the many benefits of being a daily LP visitor is being entertained by the many math-based theorums being offered as a way to win a lottery jackpot.
I don't claim to be one of the smartest cards in the deck, but I'm smart enough to know that if there is a mathematical solution to winning the lottery it would have been used to win either one of the recent high dollar jackpots.I've been so very patient in all this...up until now. bobby, just how do you think the that the lottery entities arrived at the 'odds and chances' part of the overall equation? Do you think they just decided on some random number to base their odds of winning versus their payouts on? Anything and, I repeat ANYTHING that is number-based has a standard numerical foundation by which PROFITS are calculated. If you have a 'fixed number or numbers' then, you have a basic mathematical starting point to develop a method to extrapolate fundamental information for gains. The fact that you see that no one applied math and money to the most recent jackpot to win it means absolutely diddley squat, my man! It would cost an unobtanium amount of both money and toil to develop all the tickets required to cover enough bets to win either PB or MM's, bobby. Get real. I notice, though, that you've never commented on how the MIT students master minded the Cash WinFall game with MATH compiled with finances to the point to where Massachusetts had to discontinue that game. No, you've never commented on that at all. Why, bobby? They also made it crystal clear that 'math' was the prerequisite to their success. Your response to this is now requested by me personally.
Face it - mathematics and computer software do not win lotteries.
We all know that math alone doesn't get win and I never said that it did. It's the compilation of it all, as a unit...a system, which is dictated by math which reveals how much needs to be spend in order to yield the best chance(s) of success.
Here is some basic information regarding the Texas Pick 6/54 lottery, which, by the way, was recently won with a Quick Pick, just like every other jackpot in the past 20 years or more.
The average player(s), even those with lots of money, just don't have the means to implement such a large scale system to win a 'regular' state lottery, bobby. Even with money being no object for say, a very successful business owner, there's still the extremely tedious issue of preparing all those tickets and, not to mention, then getting all those same tickets run through the terminals. It's not just a walk in the park trying to 'intentionally' win this type of large scale lottery, bobby, so please quit trying to drive home this point of 'if it were so simple, then they'd do it.'
Most lottery gamblers believe the tests are a ruse to distort or disrupt any useful trends that could pose a threat to the lottery's profit margins.
This requires more time than I'm willing to devote right now and, others have already discussed just what those pre tests allow to happen. Recently, several states had the exact same combination of individual numbers, in their same positions, return in the next so-called official draw results. Pick 3 and Pick 4. I'm in that 1% that likes to study the dynamics of this tool they use. In terms of disrupting profits, your comment here is laughable with respect to us being lottery cyber friends. *When you figure out what needs to be done via mathematics, secure and mark all the tickets you need, have all those tickets successfully run through the terminals, you end up doing exactly what the MIT guys did!! They directly interfered with the profits by exploiting the game's weakness via money compiled with the combinations and math. There was no substitution method available for what they master minded, bobby. It required math, sir.
The mathematicians want us to believe that the 'chaos' in the vessel can be calculated in ways that will allow us to know, in advance, the identity of the six balls that will make it through the gate!!!
There's no chaos in the vessel(s), bobby, only white balls clearly marked with black digits. Those digits are odd or even. They are high or low.
*In closing bobby, I urge you to please read the following article, in its entirety, which serves as one of the cornerstones for the MIT success. This is from 1992, my man:
https://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/25/us/group-invests-5-million-to-hedge-bets-in-lottery.html
*You will not find the word 'substitution' anywhere in this article regarding just how they managed to accomplish their feat. In fact, it's not in there at all and neither is math. However, the words combinations, tickets, investment, return,rate, percent, split, odds, yield, and many others are included here and all pointing at one thing............math.
I like you, bobby, but your argument about substitution would fall completely flat on any lottery mathematician's ears and that's according directly to this article.
It's the compilation of it all, as a unit...a system, which is dictated by math which reveals how much needs to be spend in order to yield the best chance(s) of success.
what's the debate about?? sunk cost vrs winning and staying ahead?? Or is it that everyone has to use a certain amount of math no matter how small or large"complex" to play lotto it does not matter if you have devised a system in excel or on paper?? is this it?
Vtrac's are substitutions in a small basic math form but it's substitution. you have to count with simple math for vtrac's of +5, its substitution and math based not pie based complex but still its math who disagrees?
I have a system that i devised out of thin air and its based on 220 boxed combos for pick 3.. Now if i just pick a combo out of the 220 to play it would not be math based or substitution because i'm not counting anything just picking from the smallest matrix of the game in pick 3.
The minute i track how much of this how much of that based on flips, spins, mirrors, gaps, solar flares or letters of the alphabet then i have morphed a straight no math way of picking boxed combos into a hybrid system part math part substitution..
If i have to count anything to produce a combination its math based. In the end we are all Guessssssssssing very little math or over the top math. It comes down to most effective cost effect systems to try to beat the matrix that the individual is attempting to conquer..
how could the computer find patterns in a lottery? Not until you find it first if there are any and then you program it to replicate what you have discovered, if that makes sense
Strategies Timing Luck
It's all Guess-Work
-
Re: My last post.
I am in no way saying or implying that all non-Quick Pick methods are illegal.
People like Tipton who use their knowledge and access to rig a game are engaging in criminal conduct.
The Australians broke no laws. They just took advantage of lax or non-existent lottery procedures in Virginia.
The MIT students didn't violate any laws. They, like the Australians, took advantage of a situation that the Mass. lottery folks
weren't immediately aware of. The prizes were paid and the lottery cancelled the game.
I don't consider my methods, or any other methods I'm aware of, to be prohibited by any lottery statue.
We players can use any method we choose in an attempt to win something.
However, rigging a game by spraying paint in specific hollow lottery balls to achieve a desired outcome is not a smart way to win, and is not recommended. -
Giesswork wrote...how could the computer find patterns in a lottery? Not until you find it first if there are any and then you program it to replicate what you have discovered, if that makes sense
Perfect sense.
Depending on the math used ALL the numbers are the winning numbers.
Probability and infinite outcome thinking dictates this.
So if ALL the numbers are winners then which one's aren't?
Math alone will not determine this for you, math is a tool like a mechanics spanner. You need to work out what tools to use and where.
A computer can only use the tools it is instructed to use in a way it is taught to use them. AI and NN systems are one's with the highest potential to give some meaning cut they also work with a constrained tool set.
-
Quote: Originally posted by GuesssWork on Nov 3, 2018
It's the compilation of it all, as a unit...a system, which is dictated by math which reveals how much needs to be spend in order to yield the best chance(s) of success.
what's the debate about?? sunk cost vrs winning and staying ahead?? Or is it that everyone has to use a certain amount of math no matter how small or large"complex" to play lotto it does not matter if you have devised a system in excel or on paper?? is this it?
Vtrac's are substitutions in a small basic math form but it's substitution. you have to count with simple math for vtrac's of +5, its substitution and math based not pie based complex but still its math who disagrees?
I have a system that i devised out of thin air and its based on 220 boxed combos for pick 3.. Now if i just pick a combo out of the 220 to play it would not be math based or substitution because i'm not counting anything just picking from the smallest matrix of the game in pick 3.
The minute i track how much of this how much of that based on flips, spins, mirrors, gaps, solar flares or letters of the alphabet then i have morphed a straight no math way of picking boxed combos into a hybrid system part math part substitution..
If i have to count anything to produce a combination its math based. In the end we are all Guessssssssssing very little math or over the top math. It comes down to most effective cost effect systems to try to beat the matrix that the individual is attempting to conquer..
how could the computer find patterns in a lottery? Not until you find it first if there are any and then you program it to replicate what you have discovered, if that makes sense
I feel bad enough already that I diverted the thread from its' patterns discussion so I'll leave the bulk of your post alone. Your last sentence, however, is exactly what I recently elaborated on. The player must know what they're looking for, why, and how to use it to their advantage.
Small games, frequent wins, and regular payouts 'cause.....
There are seven days in the week...'Someday' isn't one of them.
#lotto-4-a-living
-
Quote: Originally posted by bobby623 on Nov 3, 2018
Re: My last post.
I am in no way saying or implying that all non-Quick Pick methods are illegal.
People like Tipton who use their knowledge and access to rig a game are engaging in criminal conduct.
The Australians broke no laws. They just took advantage of lax or non-existent lottery procedures in Virginia.
The MIT students didn't violate any laws. They, like the Australians, took advantage of a situation that the Mass. lottery folks
weren't immediately aware of. The prizes were paid and the lottery cancelled the game.
I don't consider my methods, or any other methods I'm aware of, to be prohibited by any lottery statue.
We players can use any method we choose in an attempt to win something.
However, rigging a game by spraying paint in specific hollow lottery balls to achieve a desired outcome is not a smart way to win, and is not recommended.I'm certainly glad that you cleaned this up from your last post, bobby. None of those people outside of the ball painters and the Tipton Mob did anything illegal otherwise there would've been charges and jail time. Players that have the money, the knowledge, and the logistics find ways to make money in lottery games and have been doing it for decades. It was only after what happened in Virginia did lawmakers begin seriously looking at ways to prevent or discourage those with the money, knowledge, and logistics from being able to repeat that model which was simply a matter of covering all or most of the bets at a given time. Take our Texas 6/54 for instance where the rollover is minimized and the JP rarely sees anything even remotely close to what would turn a profit if the prize amount eclipses total combos for the matrix. Sometimes, we have to reverse engineer in these instances and explore reasonable possibilities. Same thing applies to the Pick games. I wasn't attacking you in any way, okay. I just wanted to point out, again, that math plays a major role in any lottery game when it comes to cost vs. return principles. I'm not knocking your substitution method but, none of those in my post even hinted at such a method because it's all about math...which is what every single lottery game is fundamentally based around.
Small games, frequent wins, and regular payouts 'cause.....
There are seven days in the week...'Someday' isn't one of them.
#lotto-4-a-living
-
I have a DOS based program that shows trends like even/odd, high/low, sums, etc. and it shows decades and consecutive numbers in 5/39 and lotto games. It's more for filtering than showing a pattern. Keno players look for patterns, but it's 20 numbers out of 80 unlike 5 out of 69 or 70 numbers.
The thing is, we keep reading about patterns, but it's very seldom when somebody actually identifies one. You can't program a computer find a pattern without knowing what you're looking for.
-
"Why is it that no mathematician has ever demonstrated via an LP post how knowing the odds, probabilities, statistics and other math-based features can help average, everyday players actually win a significant lottery prize?"
Firstly, let's get a handle on some terms. Odds and probabilities are basically the same thing. Odds = 1 divided by probability. Equivalently, probability = 1 divided by odds. That is, if the probability of winning is 1 in 150, the odds of winning are said to be 150 to 1. Or if you say the odds of winning are 300 million to 1, it means the probability of winning is 1/300 million.
The lottery has few statistics to it, which makes it fairly easy to analyze (unlike prescription drug trial data, or mortality, things like that)... probability of winning the jackpot, probability of winning the 2nd prize, etc., probability of winning anything, and expected value. The lottery publishes all the probabilities. They are available on the website and on the back of the playslip. The lottery doesn't give you the expected value, but it is easy to calculate. The expected value is the sum of probability of winning a prize times the prize amount.
Say a $1 game has two prizes: a jackpot of $100 and a 2nd prize of $20. The probability of winning the jackpot is 1 in 500, and the probability of winning the 2nd prize is 1 in 50. The expected value would be 1/500 * $100 + 1/50 * $20 = $0.20 + $0.40 = $0.60. Sixty cents on the dollar is 60%. What this means is that in the long run, you can expect to win 60% of what you wager. Clearly, it wouldn't make any sense to wager a million dollars on this game, because you would win $600,000 (on average, with the variance being pretty low), for a $400,000 loss. Gambling with such crummy returns only makes sense if you don't wager very much, where a prize would be big enough to put you in the black. Most lottery games have an expected value of 50% for draw games (pick 3, MM, PB, etc.) but higher for scratch-offs, as high as 75% for a $50 scratcher in Texas (I did the math once and that is my recollection, with the $1 scratcher returning 60%). Taxes and having to share a prize with others makes the calculation harder, but generally speaking just use 50%.
As far as trying to predict the future, well, math isn't going to help you with that goal. You would need a time machine. Systems, methods, tarot cards, it doesn't matter, none of those things will work.
-
Quote: Originally posted by bobby623 on Nov 3, 2018
Re: My last post.
I am in no way saying or implying that all non-Quick Pick methods are illegal.
People like Tipton who use their knowledge and access to rig a game are engaging in criminal conduct.
The Australians broke no laws. They just took advantage of lax or non-existent lottery procedures in Virginia.
The MIT students didn't violate any laws. They, like the Australians, took advantage of a situation that the Mass. lottery folks
weren't immediately aware of. The prizes were paid and the lottery cancelled the game.
I don't consider my methods, or any other methods I'm aware of, to be prohibited by any lottery statue.
We players can use any method we choose in an attempt to win something.
However, rigging a game by spraying paint in specific hollow lottery balls to achieve a desired outcome is not a smart way to win, and is not recommended."took advantage of a situation that the Mass. lottery folks weren't immediately aware of."
They were aware of when there was a spike in ticket sales that created a rollover and benefited extra sales volume. The problem for the Mass Lottery was the same as the for the Virginia Lottery, regular players couldn't use the terminals. Had one of those regular players won the jackpot, the MIT students and the Michigan couple would lose lots of money.
"I don't consider my methods, or any other methods I'm aware of, to be prohibited by any lottery statue."
Probably lots of methods beating the 1000 to 1 odds, but the trick is beating the 50% edge and why lottery people aren't worried.
-
"Probably lots of methods beating the 1000 to 1 odds, but the trick is beating the 50% edge and why lottery people aren't worried."
The edge and the odds are connected by the paytable. The house edge of 50% is a result of the fact that the state only pays you 500 times your bet on a 1000 to 1 odds game. If you could beat the 1000 to 1 odds, you would also beat the 50% house edge.
-
Quote: Originally posted by Tucker Black on Nov 5, 2018
"Probably lots of methods beating the 1000 to 1 odds, but the trick is beating the 50% edge and why lottery people aren't worried."
The edge and the odds are connected by the paytable. The house edge of 50% is a result of the fact that the state only pays you 500 times your bet on a 1000 to 1 odds game. If you could beat the 1000 to 1 odds, you would also beat the 50% house edge.
"If you could beat the 1000 to 1 odds, you would also beat the 50% house edge."
The reason the lottery people are not worried is after a player beats the 1000 to 1 odds, they only play half of the odds. Bet most don't even understand the payoff odds are really $500 for $1 because they keep your bet. You only "win" $499.
A couple of years ago The Kentucky Lottery had an extraordinary number of pick-3 triples one month and paid out 97% of their sales in prizes. Though a 3% profit is nothing compared to 50% it was still a profit.
-
you can use 80/20 or 75/25 or be a part, play fixed numbers, because mathematically you can only reach 80% or 75% (Pareto law) example of a lottery 49/6 if you play 4 numbers fixed the remaining two that lack random, you have already noticed that in the carteziano plane can be a good filter? example matrix filter column columns (crossing) type cartelzino
an example if you choose, the number 15, you can not play in the 15 column, numbers that are above and below it, and in the line can not play to the left and to the right of it, (of course sometimes we have 2 or 3 or in the row or column, this is a standard, I would ask those who have knowledge in excel to help create the matrix filter of a matrix. You can assemble an array, (columns columns of different shapes in the same lottery, it can be 5, 6,7,8, columns, or you can do the inverse, find blocks or empty segments in rows and columns, to be able to play with 80% -
the era of computing and electronics is only linear. or at the beginning we have much to evolve step by step, but we can already use artificial intelligence, to cross reference pattern of a number of statistics, example I have 5 or 6
Statistical data, at least one of them will have a high peak in the lottery draw, this is what we are looking for with computation
of course, not only in a single event
(a lottery the next) everything is a matter of compatibility and synchronism, also in random events of the lotteries