Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 5, 2016, 4:23 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Lotto Sync test II retry

Topic closed. 49 replies. Last post 13 years ago by lottoking.

Page 2 of 4
PrintE-mailLink
hypersoniq's avatar - 8ball
Pennsylvania
United States
Member #1340
April 6, 2003
2450 Posts
Offline
Posted: October 25, 2003, 6:38 pm - IP Logged
Quote: Originally posted by Guru on October 25, 2003



I always said I was trying to reach the 90% 3 correct in 10







Would you buy a car that was 90% guaranteed to start in 3 of 10 tries? Would you knowingly enter a race with the stated goal of coming in 4th or 5th?

I'm not bringing over the bad vibes from the other thread... quite the contrary... I can relate... I have locked up a PII machine for 11 hours only to find no good results, I AM however convinced you may be onto something... but why not go for the kill? Why not shoot for ONE good pick? I have seen this countless times on here (not just with your SW) where the same people who will tell you that picking the next draw is impossible have no problem selling a system that is supposed to help you win... How could anyone believe someone who doesn't believe in their own work? If you tell me 6 of 6 is impossible, then I must assume 3 of 10 is nothing but coincidence...

Go for the Brass Ring! You admitted that it took years to get to where you are now... would those years have been better spent going for a win rather than a steady 3/10? I would rather spend $1 on a single pick and have it wrong than $50 on a wheel and have it wrong... prediction is all-or-nothing... Your years of research are way ahead of my weeks of dabbling, you would have a better chance of success than I (at the moment... LOL) , print your 10 picks as usual, but try to work towards adding one "best pick"... thomsol did it and matched 3 on MM...

I'm going to spend the next few weeks/months/years with this Randomness theory and dedicate it to one solitary purpose... picking the PA 3 digit game (and by association, the 4 digit... same concept 3 games of 1:10 odds vs 4) I'll play it on paper (well, excel worksheet and notepad.exe "paper"...) until it starts to work... If it works, I'll post picks... If not, I won't... but I won't ever try to sell it here or anywhere. But the goal... ONE single solitary pick, win or lose. I will probably never get there, but if I do... it will be because it was my GOAL from the beginning!

I think we should all go back to the open discussion on theory and mathematics... that was fun!

Good luck in the tests, but remember, nobody plays to lose... go for the right goal!!! 

Playing more than one ticket per game is betting against yourself.


    Belgium
    Member #2220
    September 2, 2003
    553 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: October 25, 2003, 7:29 pm - IP Logged

    Hypersoniq:

    I do not agree with your thing. a 6 out of just 6 numbers is not impossible, but it is highly unrealistic to set this as your goal. Randomness should have a deterministic character in order to make this work out. (this can not be true, because sooner or later lotto results would get into a loop and repeat exactly the same outcomes !!). In my opinion it is not deterministic but probabilistic or partly both. The same thing can be seen in genetics. The deterministic part makes us humans all the same kind, while the probabilistic factors create variation in our species (or good or bad mutations). For instance, look at a certain species of trees. Their branches and leaves all grow in the same specific way, but no 2 of these trees are exactly the same. Therefor, I believe one does need more than 6 numbers to have a reasonable chance of matching 5 or 6. There exists no 100% exact solution for the continuation of randomness. It will always be restricted by some degree of error. The less error the better ofcourse, but expect there are limits.

    I don't think the car example was a good example. I would rather compare lotto software to a cure for cancer. Although doctors do their best to cure every patient. They can not give any guarantees. But if you ask me. If I ever get cancer, I would want my chances of survival to be the best possible, and get the treatment.

    ps: if you believe in the probabilistic or partly deterministic character of randomness. The word "coincidence" loses its meaning.

    keep going on hypersonic.

      Todd's avatar - Cylon 2.gif
      Chief Bottle Washer
      New Jersey
      United States
      Member #1
      May 31, 2000
      23260 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: October 25, 2003, 8:04 pm - IP Logged

      BTW, I believe the price that Guru is asking on his site is 87 Euros, not $87.  87 Euros would equate to about $100 USD.

       

      Check the State Lottery Report Card
      What grade did your lottery earn?

       

      Sign the Petition for True Lottery Drawings
      Help eliminate computerized drawings!

        RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
        mid-Ohio
        United States
        Member #9
        March 24, 2001
        19824 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: October 25, 2003, 9:46 pm - IP Logged

        $100 for RNG even if it does have a special seed is a lot of $.  I would think one could program a regular RNG in a loop to pick 10 numbers and when ever a set of 10 have 4 or more numbers from the last draws loop one more time and print out the last loop.

        RJOh 

         * you don't need to buy more tickets, just buy a winning ticket * 
           
                     Evil Looking       

          Todd's avatar - Cylon 2.gif
          Chief Bottle Washer
          New Jersey
          United States
          Member #1
          May 31, 2000
          23260 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: October 25, 2003, 9:50 pm - IP Logged

          I'd be willing to put up money in a battle between Guru's software and the Lottery Post Quick Picks Generator.

           

          Check the State Lottery Report Card
          What grade did your lottery earn?

           

          Sign the Petition for True Lottery Drawings
          Help eliminate computerized drawings!

            visiondude's avatar - eye3logo
            light on my feet
            United States
            Member #356
            May 20, 2002
            2744 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: October 25, 2003, 10:10 pm - IP Logged

            Quote:

                        "i am .........."meant to"       

            P.S.,  that RJoH  is a stand up guy.  thanks,  vision

                     until further notice,  it's  france everyday

              RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
              mid-Ohio
              United States
              Member #9
              March 24, 2001
              19824 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: October 25, 2003, 10:44 pm - IP Logged

              LottoCheata had a similar test a year ago where he picked ~300 lines for a PowerBall drawing with his program against ~300 lines picked by a RNG and the RNG's numbers won.  He explained that his program was bias to pick a winning number within a small range and could not in a short run compete with a RNG that picked all sort of numbers over a larger range.  I suspect that Guru program would do no better since he hasn't prove that a particular seed number is better than any other seed when using a RNG, no matter the time you spend picking it.

              RJOh

               * you don't need to buy more tickets, just buy a winning ticket * 
                 
                           Evil Looking       

                www.winnerslost .com;www.649-lottery.com
                China
                Member #2526
                October 15, 2003
                976 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: October 26, 2003, 12:10 am - IP Logged

                Guru,the problem you mentioned appear in my system too -- "Or a number 5 for example presents itself not as 5 but as 4 and or 6 (together). Or when a number 7 is predicted, it is difficult to estimate wether this number will be drawn really as number 7 or as number 8 when there is already a number 9 in the last draw"

                My way is to put all these 3 kinds together and keep reducing the sets.

                welcome to communiate

                nansen

                  hypersoniq's avatar - 8ball
                  Pennsylvania
                  United States
                  Member #1340
                  April 6, 2003
                  2450 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: October 26, 2003, 12:12 am - IP Logged
                  Quote: Originally posted by Guru on October 25, 2003



                  Hypersoniq:

                  I do not agree with your thing. a 6 out of just 6 numbers is not impossible, but it is highly unrealistic to set this as your goal. In my opinion, it would be a waste of time to devote any great amount of effort into anything but a winning result.

                  Randomness should have a deterministic character in order to make this work out. (this can not be true, because sooner or later lotto results would get into a loop and repeat exactly the same outcomes !!). In my opinion it is not deterministic but probabilistic or partly both. Drawing parameters are deterministic (they could not draw an 18 as the FIRST digit (or any single digit) in a 3 digit game, as the balls are numbered from 0 to 9 in each machine). Results are stochastic, each drawing recieves a healthy dose of entropy when the balls are mixed up...

                  The same thing can be seen in genetics. The deterministic part makes us humans all the same kind, while the probabilistic factors create variation in our species (or good or bad mutations). For instance, look at a certain species of trees. Their branches and leaves all grow in the same specific way, but no 2 of these trees are exactly the same. Therefor, I believe one does need more than 6 numbers to have a reasonable chance of matching 5 or 6. There exists no 100% exact solution for the continuation of randomness. It will always be restricted by some degree of error. The less error the better ofcourse, but expect there are limits. Limits are meant to be exceeded... especially here in the research stage.

                  I don't think the car example was a good example. I would rather compare lotto software to a cure for cancer. Although doctors do their best to cure every patient. They can not give any guarantees. But if you ask me. If I ever get cancer, I would want my chances of survival to be the best possible, and get the treatment. If I ever get cancer, I will take the treatment, and in addition pick up a Rife device...

                  ps: if you believe in the probabilistic or partly deterministic character of randomness. The word "coincidence" loses its meaning. I stand by the coincidence concept, we don't have enough information about all of the variables that affect the results of a drawing.... any results at this point would be strictly coincidence.

                  keep going on hypersonic.




                  Playing more than one ticket per game is betting against yourself.


                    Belgium
                    Member #2220
                    September 2, 2003
                    553 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: October 26, 2003, 3:47 am - IP Logged

                    Rjoh:

                    You mistake the system hypersoniq is working on with the Lotto synchronizer system. We don't use a RNG with a special seed. that's hypersoniq his thing.

                    To All:

                    About the quick-pick thing. Quick picks are not too bad a way to play. If the RNG is a good one, you will at least be playing a natural group of numbers. But Quick-Picks have no clue of where they are picking in the "random number universe" if I may call it that way.

                    If I may ask this question. Who can say here, they win 5 correct every year (with quick-picks or any other system)?? Who won 5+ or 6 correct over all the years of playing ?? If LottoSynchronizer mangages to predict 1 or 2 times 5 correct in a year that definetely proves it works. If you don't agree with that, you are absolutely overestimating your chances of winning. If doing this would be possible by guessing. Every player would win more money than they spend, and the lotteries would have already been bankrupt by now. I've seen many people here at my door, who say, look I won 4 correct, and I did that without any system. That's possible, but over the long run, they do keep losing money. If you play tickets with as much as 30 different numbers picked from a 42balls lotto. You increase your odds of winning 3 correct in this manner. It may even slightly improve things for a 4 correct win. But it will leave your odds for a bigger win as good as unchanged. If a program can manage to isolate a few times a year 5 or 6 winning numbers, in a set of just 10 numbers. Then you are winning more money than you spend. For all the programs I have bought in the past, I haven't seen 1 that could really do this for me. (dispite all the succes claims on their sites). If Lotto Synchronizer does it here in the tests for me, Then I am a winner. And if it can do it for me, it can do it for any other single player.

                      Avatar
                      Bangalore
                      India
                      Member #2444
                      October 4, 2003
                      234 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: October 26, 2003, 4:04 am - IP Logged

                      Hi All,

                      Sorry to i


                        Belgium
                        Member #2220
                        September 2, 2003
                        553 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: October 26, 2003, 4:18 am - IP Logged

                        Next set of numbers will be in on tuesday

                          Bug's avatar - avatar php?userid=678402&dateline=1071851147

                          United States
                          Member #788
                          October 15, 2002
                          471 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: October 26, 2003, 6:30 am - IP Logged

                           

                          How much money has this system lost so far?

                            Prometheus1's avatar - trace9

                            United States
                            Member #1344
                            April 6, 2003
                            177 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: October 26, 2003, 9:09 am - IP Logged

                             

                                              My Machine is 'just around the corner'

                             In one demonstration, I can lift a piece of metal and hold a magnet to it. I can demonstrate that because the magnet will stay on the metal indefinitely, it is a source of infinite energy. This is a hard fact and is an unquestionable reality.

                             

                                                                How it works

                              I can combine infinite energy from a magnet with what I call "counter-rotation" technology, which turns Newton's third law of motion (when one object exerts a force on another, the latter exerts the same amount of force back) on its head.  Through a "fourth law of motion" that I have discovered, the result of one action can be perpetuated beyond a single reaction.

                            I claim that the reaction can be turned around and made into an action.

                            What I'm really talking about is a perpetual source of energy that conquers the most fundamental law of physics, which is the conservation of energy. It is a machine that produces more energy than it takes to run.

                             The implications of this discovery on mankind, and our quest for a production source ofinfinite energy are of a profound magnitude.

                              I have now given you a presentation of this break-through in the form of what I call the "Peanut butter and Jelly Sandwich " demonstration. I have shown you the peanut butter on one side and the Jelly and bread on the other. All my production staff has left  to do now is put it together. 

                             I can't legally make any claims of successful experiments at this point in time. However, I am making a "home version" available to a limited amount clients, as production continues at a very slow pace. The cost is a very meager $89.95. This is an obvious and  generous offer considering the potential of this product as a unlimited source of *free energy.

                             

                             

                             

                                             *Magnetism is a force of gravity and should not be confused with energy. This product is for entertainment purposes only. Side effects of the"home version"of "free energy" on some users may result in slight headache and nausea, which can sometimes be accompanied by a slight tingling and anal leakage.      Not sold in any stores.  u.s.a.patents 333320                     

                                 

                              PROMETHEUS       

                              Avatar
                              Bangalore
                              India
                              Member #2444
                              October 4, 2003
                              234 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: October 26, 2003, 9:17 am - IP Logged

                              Hello all and Todd,

                              Don't you think the above post is too distracting and needs to be shifted to a noisier room?! Well...just an opinion!

                              Thanks!