bgonçalves Brasil
Member #92,560
June 9, 2010
3,779 Posts
Offline
garyo not in case of a lottery of 5 numbers, you could use the last 5 raffles
to see the larger, smaller, and equal pattern.
by columns, yes it will predict blocks of 4 bets
5 6
2 2
6 1
8 4
9 5
columns 1 and 2
smaller, greater, greater, greater
the base is the previous column
Texas United States
Member #4,549
May 2, 2004
4,228 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by dr san on Apr 15, 2019
garyo not in case of a lottery of 5 numbers, you could use the last 5 raffles
to see the larger, smaller, and equal pattern.
by columns, yes it will predict blocks of 4 bets
5 6
2 2
6 1
8 4
9 5
columns 1 and 2
smaller, greater, greater, greater
the base is the previous column
I laugh at myself to think how many hours I've spent on lottery. Like designing a leather bracelet, putting leather in the laser, going through every small detail. And when it comes out, I see with all the time I spent on details, somehow I lost track of the basics!
The Programmers Fallacy of Lottery Law says: All I need is more data!
Reality says: More data only fools you into believing you had it right and the lottery messed up! And you continue playing the same, making the same mistakes, telling yourself this should happen because the data is right!
In the game of programmer versus a bunch of random numbered balls, who wins?
Programmer: Use logic!
Balls: Bounce around brainless in a box of air like fools!
What could go wrong?
(Laughter is good for the soul! So laugh! Enjoy life! And the rest will take care of itself!)
G
I'm probably here unless I'm not.
Dreaming would be a perfectly useless function if it's only purpose was to entertain.
United States
Member #161,360
November 27, 2014
1,082 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by dr san on Apr 2, 2019
What are the basic patterns of a lottery of numbers?
can be patterns that occur 75% to 80%
This has probably been already stated in this thread, but unfortunately I don't have hours of time to waste wallowing through a plethora of posts that essentially amount to drivel. I consider myself a free speech absolutist, but I suppose I will have to start blocking people who only pretend to be serious about the lottery, in an effort to separate the wheat from the chafe. I see too many ad hominem attacks for naught, and without provocation. Too many spoil the soup.
Regarding 75% to 80 % I imagine, that pertains to most sums that occur within the CORE of the bell curve.
However in terms of ROI, IMO FMO, it is unsustainable economically to wager on 75% of the numbers, or 80% of the patterns.
Unfortunatley there is no LOTTERY BIBLE written that explicitly deals with pick 3 games. Only implicitly.
It might be easier to address your question, if we knew exactly what game you were playing, and perhaps could see a picture of your LG or any type of logic scenarios you have formulated for you particular game.
Have you entered the place where the snow is stored?Or have you seen the storehouses of hail, Which I hold in reserve for times of trouble,for the day of battle and war? JOB 38:22 HCSB
Texas United States
Member #4,549
May 2, 2004
4,228 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by JeetKuneDoLotto on Apr 15, 2019
This has probably been already stated in this thread, but unfortunately I don't have hours of time to waste wallowing through a plethora of posts that essentially amount to drivel. I consider myself a free speech absolutist, but I suppose I will have to start blocking people who only pretend to be serious about the lottery, in an effort to separate the wheat from the chafe. I see too many ad hominem attacks for naught, and without provocation. Too many spoil the soup.
Regarding 75% to 80 % I imagine, that pertains to most sums that occur within the CORE of the bell curve.
However in terms of ROI, IMO FMO, it is unsustainable economically to wager on 75% of the numbers, or 80% of the patterns.
Unfortunatley there is no LOTTERY BIBLE written that explicitly deals with pick 3 games. Only implicitly.
It might be easier to address your question, if we knew exactly what game you were playing, and perhaps could see a picture of your LG or any type of logic scenarios you have formulated for you particular game.
I have a sense of humor. I like to laugh.
Maybe you don't like to laugh. Or maybe you can't find anything to laugh about. Maybe you're just too serious.
(Too many serious people ruin a party!)
And maybe you never thought free speech works both ways. You say what you want the way you want, I say what I want they way I want. But if you don't like what is said, or how its said you block people? Is that what you think FREE SPEECH means? Might as well start blocking because that's not free speech. Yeah, you don't qualify as a free speech absolutist.
So here's a better thought:
If you don't want to laugh, or can't find any humor in what is written, scroll passed that post. Nobody will ever know. And nobody will care. Either way, announcing you're going to block someone while claiming to be a free speech absolutist is as childish as a pouting four year who didn't get a second scoop of ice cream! And makes no sense.
Just what do you think happens when you threaten to block someone? Do you think they go to bed crying? Do you think they worry that some nameless stranger on the Internet blocked them? Do you think they are going to quit having fun or laughing because you threatened to block them?
Frankly, this post didn't get 9833 views because a bunch of serious people were talking dry stats. And it didn't get 9833 views because people were blocking it.
Wallow through the drivel and see who did some work, who wrote programs, who posted charts, and who put an effort into answering all the questions he was asked.
Was it me, who was here on page one contributing and answering questions? Or you, the Debbie Downer, who popped in on page 9, a first post with, "I'm going to start blocking people" threat?
Better yet, let's see how long this thread lasts with you droning on in a serious tone, dishing out dry statistics that few care about, and fewer understand.
G
I'm probably here unless I'm not.
Dreaming would be a perfectly useless function if it's only purpose was to entertain.
San Angelo, Texas United States
Member #1,097
January 31, 2003
1,648 Posts
Offline
A short comment.
I've been in LP a long time and read some really crazy stuff on how to win.
I have posted most of my ideas that seemed rational but proved worthless.
I followed the leaders - i.e. the mathematicians whom I now rate as worthless as the junk they propose.
It's really hard to believe that sane, smart people can view an actual drawing and come away believing that a lottery game can be won with mathematics.
It's same as saying that you can't win without a bunch of charts, percentages and other stuff that in the final analysis add up to zero.
The fact that a fixed number of balls are arranged and rearranged until the required number of balls escape and become winning numbers apparently is too simple to believe and have application.
Well, speaking for myself, I one day woke up and realized that winning a lottery prize can be done without mathematics.
Instead of rocket-science level mathematics, you can win with simple methods akin to children playing with blocks.
I could go on but the fact is that I could never adequately explain my non-math methods.
Besides, I have never received any kind of assistance regarding my ideas.
Apparently, most folks come to LP for free handouts, or to get high by posting worthless methods and predictions.
Winning requires a rational strategy and attention to even the smallest detail.
Yes, it's guesswork, but, I've found that once in awhile, the data lines up and a win can be achieved.
As lottery system analysts, we are not bound by any rules. And it's surprising what you can learn when you are willing to stick with a plan and take a few chances.
Quantifying trends is risky business to be sure but there can be no wins without it, in my opinion.
Good luck!
bgonçalves Brasil
Member #92,560
June 9, 2010
3,779 Posts
Offline
hello garyo, besides the major and minor and equal patterns, we also have the formation of sequences that do not repeat the group
ex =
457
165
we have the last group = 457 = even odd / odd
so in the next we will filter and delete by groups
by default and by group sequence, not playing the same sequence of the last draw