Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 8, 2016, 4:15 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Best Pick-5 and 6 Lottery Software

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

Page 3 of 4
PrintE-mailLink

If you were allowed only one commercial lottery software it would be?

Gail Howard [ 11 ]  [20.37%]
Lottohat [ 4 ]  [7.41%]
Lottery Director [ 2 ]  [3.70%]
Lotto Pro [ 10 ]  [18.52%]
EOL Lottery Tracker and Wheeler [ 2 ]  [3.70%]
Lotwin by Futuresoft [ 1 ]  [1.85%]
Lotto Boss [ 2 ]  [3.70%]
Versa Bet [ 7 ]  [12.96%]
TCI World [ 4 ]  [7.41%]
Other [ 11 ]  [20.37%]
Total Valid Votes [ 54 ]  
Discarded Votes [ 40 ]  
Avatar
Florida
United States
Member #526
October 25, 2001
127 Posts
Offline
Posted: February 9, 2004, 11:02 am - IP Logged
Quote: Originally posted by MikeK on January 10, 2004



My question is: What really is "Lottery Softwae"?

If you own a software that evaluates your previous drawings and makes you decide what to play by offering all filters etc. then in my opinion it is not really a Lottery Software but a Lottery Tool.

I think that the computer porgram should pick the numbers and do the selection for you. The only filter impact (human interface) should be on the number of selections and slight adjustments according to the player's indivual needs, the numbers should be selected by the system/software itself. That cannot alwasy be done but it should be the focus of designing systems/software.

Being not a believer in tracking numbers throughout long periods, I have not seen any systems that excite me, because once the start basing their suggestions on 100's and 1000's of previous drawings, I get bored.

Good Luck!






I couldnt agree more Mike.  But HOW do yo ucome to the conclusion that 100 or 1000 draws of history are not relevant?  The only way to know, is to be able to test all the quantities in between.  Which software in the list allows you to do that, and lets you compare the results of those changes against each other?

And yes, in my experience with testing large amounts of history, most filtering methods perform better (and faster) with 1-40 historical draws.  What is interesting though, is that quantities required will differ from lottery to lottery.  Does that seem strange?  I dont think so, since most lotteries are totally independant of each other, but an individual lottery is not independant, in the simple fact that the ball sets, machines and drawing environments are usually close to identical each time (with a small margin of error for environmental differences, ballset differences and minor Mfg defects/differences between drawing machines.)

Anyway, the only way a user will truly know if that much history is useless or not is ONLY if they are allowed to test the software with that much.  But if the user doesnt care about learning all about software, then they might be happy with a very limited (pre-configured) piece of software they had to purchase.

*Andrew*

WINHunter - Freeware Lottery Number Predicting software for the 21st century. NOT FOR THE FAINT OF HEART.

www.sourceforge.net/projects/winhunter

    Avatar
    Florida
    United States
    Member #526
    October 25, 2001
    127 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: February 9, 2004, 11:14 am - IP Logged
    Quote: Originally posted by RJOh on January 10, 2004



    Software never make any decisions.  If any decision are made, it is based on the logic that someone has programmed  into the software, and if the user is not making any decision than he is allowing some programmer to make decisions for him good or bad and mostly bad. ...(snip)





    Maybe you haven't tried the AI portion of WINHunter.

    It seems users are split over whether or not they want the software to make a choice, or not.  In WINHunter, you have both of these options:


    • The user can configure the software how s/he wants to.  The user tests their settings to see how well, or not so well it performed.
    • Artificial Intelligence makes random/logical choices/configuration decisions based on simple logic (much like a user would). "add this, set that, test it.  Did it work?  Yes, do this; Else try something else"

    The AI module doesnt sit there and scratch it's head wondering if it should or should not test a particular setting.  It works within the realm of options allowed, saves promising results for later enhancement/revisiting or discards bad results.

    If you expect immediate results from WINHunter, you will be greatly disappointed.  Gail Howard only shows such great success because she has been i nthe public eye with results for so long.  From what I understand, alot of people have failed while using her systems.  In my own opinion, a well thought out system will dventually make a substantial win.

    *Andrew*

    WINHunter - Freeware Lottery Number Predicting software for the 21st century. NOT FOR THE FAINT OF HEART.

    www.sourceforge.net/projects/winhunter

      BobP's avatar - bobp avatar.png
      Dump Water Florida
      United States
      Member #380
      June 5, 2002
      3104 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: February 10, 2004, 6:46 pm - IP Logged

      IMHO the best lottery software design should offer prediction with a switch that allows it to be turned on and off, thus everyone can be happy.

      True lottery software worthy of the name would have a self correcting prediction routine that automatically plays the system in all its manifestations against the history, finds the most succesful path now due and present that result to the user.

      I'm not talking about the one that generates thousands of "systems" until ten hit and suggests you pick one of them, they don't hit again in the next draw.

      There should be no doubt the picks sent to wheeling are the best possible with the knowledge available prior to the drawing.  If the drawing deviates from the prediction that will be noted and part of the next prediction run. 

      Until software can pull itself up by its own boot straps we can only look at its picks and try to find where among its picks the winning numbers turn up so we can wheel numbers from those ranges.  Let the current software predict or at least rank all the numbers, after the draw circle where they were so you can get an idea where it puts the winners among the ranked results often enough to be worth covering. BobP

        Avatar
        Florida
        United States
        Member #526
        October 25, 2001
        127 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: February 11, 2004, 8:49 am - IP Logged
        Quotes: Originally posted by BobP on February 10, 2004


        IMHO the best lottery software design should offer prediction with a switch that allows it to be turned on and off, thus everyone can be happy.




        I think there are several software camps to date, and I think they were mentioned in another thread somewhere else  (RGL?)...  You have predictors, analyzers and wheelers.  Some tend to combine a few features of both, but usually they are in one camp or the other.  With that in mind, why would you want to turn the prediction feature off in a program that is specifically designed to generate predictions?





        True lottery software worthy of the name would have a self correcting prediction routine that automatically plays the system in all its manifestations against the history, finds the most succesful path now due and present that result to the user.




        Some software's have this option, but the design of WINHunter itself basically prohibits this type of feature from ever existing, since there are an infinite amount of settings possible in the software.

        And how exactly does software determine "successful path now due"?  You started out by saying that the user should be in control. but now you want the software to make the decisions?  Sounds like you want software with options, and lots of them.





        I'm not talking about the one that generates thousands of "systems" until ten hit and suggests you pick one of them, they don't hit again in the next draw.




        WINHunter can generate lots of result-sets from Optimization runs, where the user decides what to save.  Again, this goes back to a main question, how do you determine what is a "good" set of options?





        Until software can pull itself up by its own boot straps we can only look at its picks and try to find where among its picks the winning numbers turn up so we can wheel numbers from those ranges.  Let the current software predict or at least rank all the numbers, after the draw circle where they were so you can get an idea where it puts the winners among the ranked results often enough to be worth covering. BobP



        Don't take my replies wrong Bob, but it seems you want to have options, but you also want the software to make choices/decisions for you.  WINHunter can do a mixture of both.  Honestly though, I have not seen ANY software that will guarentee a solid winning method to win (not even my own software spits it out for me... Dang).  And "rank" numbers?  Rank them how?  What methods are best to rank them by?  Now you want the software to rank them?  What if you dont like a particular ranking method, or how much/how little history it uses to rank them by?

        I can tell you this...  WINHunter was designed to expose as many options as possible to the user/software developer in order to be able to produce filtering schemes of any configuration.  No other lottery software has filtering options like WINHunter (and I say that strongly, challenging anyone to prove otherwise).  WINHunter was never meant to compete with other software, but to prove concepts and ideas and to hopefully push the envelope of lottery software.  IMHO, it has succeeded in doing just that.

        Now with WINHunter being freely available (YES, free...) and users having the ability to contact the author directly, I have honestly not seen many users jump on board.  Why?  Free software not good enough, users like to pay for it instead?  Open communication with the author?  When was the last time you emailed Bill Gates and got a direct reply?  Really, I am at a loss when it comes to users these days.  Maybe you could look at WINHunter and point me in the right direction, but most of the features you are asking for already exist in WINHunter already.

        I know the above language is strong, but it is not directed at you at all.  I know WINHunter is not "THE" tool of lottery tools, and it may not have all the options users are looking for.  Other users may not like the software because there is no automatic download of their state history files, etc.  The WINHunter project was started as an Opensource project for one reason, to enable the enlistment of the users themselves to further the project and to prdvent the project from ever dying or fading away.

        If you are serious about finding a winning configuration, and your serious about owning software like what you mentioned, why would you not have a copy of WINHunter installed?

        *Andrew*

        WINHunter - Freeware Lottery Number Predicting software for the 21st century. NOT FOR THE FAINT OF HEART.

        www.sourceforge.net/projects/winhunter


          China
          Member #3032
          December 16, 2003
          1081 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: February 11, 2004, 11:25 am - IP Logged

          Let fact speak.


            United States
            Member #1759
            June 29, 2003
            1156 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: February 11, 2004, 11:46 am - IP Logged

            The possible reason for players not taking advantage of this software is due to it's complexity.I have the program myself and like it very much and plan on using it.At the moment I use other programs that I'm already familiar with.I have a program called "LottoMatrix3" that is very sophisticated it was developed back in 1999

            I shared it with other players and only a few were able to use it effectively.It took me some time to master all it's features so since WinHunter is the most sophisticated program I've encountered it makes sense that a lot of players aren't using it because they want something simple to use.The problem with simple programs is that there useless all the software that I have that requires above average technical skills works extremely well.So Andrew you'd probably be better off advertising it for "Experienced Professional Players" that are good at using and mastering Lottery Software.It's like trying to get someone who knows nothing about Computer software to use Windows XP.I know you developed WinHunter for use by all players but if you have players that know how to use systems and software and others that just use quick-picks and lucky numbers the quick-picks and lucky numbers players won't touch it.Even Steve Players systems are difficult for members in here to use and there paper\pencil.I personally believe your program is very innovative and oe of the best tools out there to forecast numbers because of it's flexibility.When I get some time I plan on learning all the softwares capabilities inside and out and use it in the FL Lottery.

              Avatar
              Florida
              United States
              Member #526
              October 25, 2001
              127 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: February 11, 2004, 12:31 pm - IP Logged

              Pick-4_Master,

              BTW, I'm in Florida as well...

              *grin*

              *Andrew*

              WINHunter - Freeware Lottery Number Predicting software for the 21st century. NOT FOR THE FAINT OF HEART.

              www.sourceforge.net/projects/winhunter


                United States
                Member #1759
                June 29, 2003
                1156 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: February 11, 2004, 1:12 pm - IP Logged

                I'm in Miami where are you?

                  Avatar
                  Florida
                  United States
                  Member #526
                  October 25, 2001
                  127 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: February 11, 2004, 1:14 pm - IP Logged

                  NW panhandle

                  *Andrew*

                  WINHunter - Freeware Lottery Number Predicting software for the 21st century. NOT FOR THE FAINT OF HEART.

                  www.sourceforge.net/projects/winhunter

                    BobP's avatar - bobp avatar.png
                    Dump Water Florida
                    United States
                    Member #380
                    June 5, 2002
                    3104 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: February 12, 2004, 12:20 am - IP Logged

                    Andrew:

                    When I use the Gail Howard software it preforms the same functions as a statistical lottery program's set of tools, and at the same time puts an * after the numbers it "predicts" are most probable based on that chart's stats.

                    After the draw the program puts a + next to the numbers on the chart  that won and leaves up the * too.  You can use the + and - keys to move back and forth through the history of the chart to see how it's been doing pick wise. 

                    Now sometimes I want that prediction and other times I'd rather think for myself and not have that * nudging my brain toward a number I'd otherwise discard.

                    Like cruise control or auto pilot, sometimes you want it, sometimes you don't.

                    The program has hundreds of charts, but only seven contribute to the overall prediction routine.  My complaint is you have to hand chart to see how each chart's prediction has been doing on its own and in relation to the other charts that contribute.  Even when you've done this task better left to a computer there is no way to use the + and - feature on the combined chart.  This is the kind of thing that ought to be automated, finding the best range of history, the charts what are correct most often and what charts work in combination.

                    Like most mechanized things we use, lottery software should be as easy as flipping a switch to automatically get a good result like cooking in the microwave and at the same time be capable of much more for those who are inclined to cook from scratch.  A good kitchen shouldn't leave you half baked.   BobP

                      Avatar
                      Florida
                      United States
                      Member #526
                      October 25, 2001
                      127 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: February 12, 2004, 6:04 am - IP Logged
                      Quote: Originally posted by BobP on February 12, 2004



                      Like most mechanized things we use, lottery software should be as easy as flipping a switch to automatically get a good result like cooking in the microwave and at the same time be capable of much more for those who are inclined to cook from scratch.  A good kitchen shouldn't leave you half baked.   BobP





                      How do you propose we get there?  I can tell you from experience, that in order for software to be able to come up with a good solution (maybe not the RIGHT solution), it will take an enormous amount of processing power.  In your example, you stated that you hand crunched different charts that were not part of the final prediction.  How long would it take her software to test every conceivable chart combination?  Beyond that, what other options are there to test besides chart combinations?  Your problem then becomes "how long do you leave the cake in the oven?".

                      It sounds to me that you get fast food results from her software, with your short term "one click" investment.  If she implements a feature allowing you to combine the charts as you wish, then you will want the software to make the choices for you.  Then, you will blame the software for it's choices, and complain that it did not give you the option to change, or you will blame it for not taking the lessor choice of settings that would have yielded a winning combination.  You see, hind sight is always better than foresight.  And unfortunately in the case with her software, you are left to deal with her final product, you have no choices.

                      It's easy for software users to complain about what they bought.  Complaining is your only recourse for software that you or any other user deems as "bad".  You ultimately have no say in the final product.  But what if the user was given the ability to partake in the design of software?  What if the user was given the ability to tinker with the sourcecode, poke around under the hood?  Would they?  I can tell you that from my experience, most won't.  But the ones that do, have not or otherwise choose not to share their findings.  I think  time and again most users have proved a simple fact.  People are greedy.  No one wants to share their winning idea.  No one wants to share their winnings with others.

                      Don't get me wrong, constructive critisim goes a long way.  But destructive critisim is useless.  And BTW, from what I have read users post about Gail Howard, kind makes you wonder which side of her mouth she speaks from.

                      Oh, and one final thought.  Sine WINHunter is VB backend and Active-X front end, you can tap into the core architecture from any VBA enabled application.  Most users these days have MS excel or MS Access installed, both of which have VBA macro abilities.  With a little tutoring and some effort on the user's part, they can build upon the core architecture of WINHunter.

                      *Andrew*

                      WINHunter - Freeware Lottery Number Predicting software for the 21st century. NOT FOR THE FAINT OF HEART.

                      www.sourceforge.net/projects/winhunter

                        BobP's avatar - bobp avatar.png
                        Dump Water Florida
                        United States
                        Member #380
                        June 5, 2002
                        3104 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: February 14, 2004, 12:52 am - IP Logged
                        Quote: Originally posted by Andrew on February 12, 2004



                        Quote: Originally posted by BobP on February 12, 2004



                        Like most mechanized things we use, lottery software should be as easy as flipping a switch to automatically get a good result like cooking in the microwave and at the same time be capable of much more for those who are inclined to cook from scratch.  A good kitchen shouldn't leave you half baked.   BobP





                        How do you propose we get there?  I can tell you from experience, that in order for software to be able to come up with a good solution (maybe not the RIGHT solution), it will take an enormous amount of processing power.  In your example, you stated that you hand crunched different charts that were not part of the final prediction.  How long would it take her software to test every conceivable chart combination?  Beyond that, what other options are there to test besides chart combinations?  Your problem then becomes "how long do you leave the cake in the oven?".

                        _______________________________________________________

                        I'm going to say something lame here, like the game engine programmers write software for computers that don't exist yet or are not affordable yet.

                        The charts I had to hand crunch WERE part of what went into the predictions.  Problem was whether to allow them to contribute or not.  To explain the process a little further, Charts 3,4,5,6,7,C and D contribute their picks to the V chart which allows the user to set weights for each chart.  For example you can make the numbers from the 5 chart worth double or triple the value of numbers from the  3 chart. 

                        The software doesn't provide any information to the user for setting the weights or which charts to allow to contribute at all, the user has to manually review each chart's history of picks draw by draw charting them on paper.  How well does each pick in relation to how many numbers they pick and do they work well with the other charts or oposite them?  Much to do by hand, not a complaint as much as a statement of what is and isn't being done by computer (servant of man or master he he).

                        ___________________________________________________

                        It sounds to me that you get fast food results from her software, with your short term "one click" investment.  If she implements a feature allowing you to combine the charts as you wish, then you will want the software to make the choices for you.  Then, you will blame the software for it's choices, and complain that it did not give you the option to change, or you will blame it for not taking the lessor choice of settings that would have yielded a winning combination.  You see, hind sight is always better than foresight.  And unfortunately in the case with her software, you are left to deal with her final product, you have no choices.

                        ____________________________________________________

                        Yes I want the software to provide both paths, to make choices that result in prediction and to present the same information so I can make the choices as I become more capable.

                        We all hope the software author knows how to win the lotto.  Oh not all the time or even for themselves, but we hope the author has worked out a method that could work if we stick at it long enough rather then making it harder or impossible to win because they were only interested in selling us something.

                        No offense Andrew because I know you've worked hard on Win Hunter and my brain slides around it like a drop of water on a hot griddle.  All my answers could be right there and I'm not smart enough to help myself.  My only consolation is there's others in this life boat with me.

                        ______________________________________________________

                         

                        It's easy for software users to complain about what they bought.  Complaining is your only recourse for software that you or any other user deems as "bad".  You ultimately have no say in the final product.  But what if the user was given the ability to partake in the design of software?  What if the user was given the ability to tinker with the sourcecode, poke around under the hood?  Would they?  I can tell you that from my experience, most won't.  But the ones that do, have not or otherwise choose not to share their findings.  I think  time and again most users have proved a simple fact.  People are greedy.  No one wants to share their winning idea.  No one wants to share their winnings with others.

                        _____________________________________________________

                        Some are greedy and we've been told often enough not to share what we're doing unless we want to share the prize more than the usual split.  The reality is most of us don't have any idea how to win beyond rehashing what we've read and found in existing lottery software.  People ask what features we want and we rattle off the same features not helping us in software we already own or hope to buy. 

                        The hope is some lottery author has been working nights by oil lamp in a cabin in the woods coming up with the perfect formula and will sell it on ebay for $5.99 with free shipping. 

                        ___________________________________________________

                        Don't get me wrong, constructive critisim goes a long way.  But destructive critisim is useless.  And BTW, from what I have read users post about Gail Howard, kind makes you wonder which side of her mouth she speaks from.

                        ____________________________________________________

                        Don't believe it, just the other day someone here posted her full quote on Quick Picks and it made perfect sense.  If you can't edit your own copy they'll make you look like an idiot every time.

                        We got one of those bread machines, pour in a few ingredients and the thing not only kneeds it into dough, it cooks it too and yells when it's done.  Things that would be magic less then a hundred years ago fly through our skys, wash our shirts, all sorts of things so it isn't hard to imagine computers getting better and software following suit.  I don't think it beyond imagination a lottery software with a limited menu playing its paths against past draws to find the method that happens to work best over time against a particular game, especially since software is relatively universal requiring it be tuned for a game's unique qualities. 

                        _____________________________________________________

                        Oh, and one final thought.  Sine WINHunter is VB backend and Active-X front end, you can tap into the core architecture from any VBA enabled application.  Most users these days have MS excel or MS Access installed, both of which have VBA macro abilities.  With a little tutoring and some effort on the user's part, they can build upon the core architecture of WINHunter.







                        My last attempt to program was on a commadore-64 and that was copying out of a book, I'll leave programming to experts like you thank you very much.  BobP

                          lottoshlep's avatar - super 7-top-over.jpg
                          BC
                          Canada
                          Member #2120
                          August 19, 2003
                          258 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: February 14, 2004, 2:34 am - IP Logged

                          Having spent some time with Andrew's WINHunter (wish I had unlimited amounts of time), attempting crude programming like Bob (old QBasic comes to mind) and having cut my lotto teeth on Gail's prog I can see where both sides are coming from. Just wish I possessed a tenth of Andrew's programming skills and a tenth of Bob's lotto insights ...  tell you right now that'd be one deadly combination!!

                          But like most I'll remain the grunt in the trenches that can take any available lotto program and slowly beat it to death in the hopes it'll cough up something good. Another great lotto mind calls this the 'lotto software junkie' syndrome, it fits me.  

                          Cheers

                          if at first you don't succeed ... destroy all evidence you ever tried  Cool 

                            WILLSELL's avatar - chi
                            NJ
                            United States
                            Member #1924
                            July 28, 2003
                            113 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: February 14, 2004, 5:55 am - IP Logged

                            You have to be in it to win it. Put another way money comes to money.

                            I am saying this because in my system my ability to win is predicated on what I am willing to spend. I like to play what I call the base numbers and I do hit often ..the problem is is it cost to hit. Example ... In NJ the box bet use to be 200.00 -300.00 consistently. So I would play 3 sets of base numbers generated from my system at a cost of 82.50. If I hit my profit was 100%Plus. But lately at least in the past year or 2 I have seen box payoff like 80.00 even as low as 52.00. So now comes the decsion factor that exists in any system. Do I reduce my number of sets to play to 2 sets? etc..

                            So in answer to those that want a system to do everything  keep dreaming.

                            As long as there is a human at one end of the equation there will be a decision factor. Give me the greatest lottery system in the world and I will show you decsions that must be made.  What we strive for is an edge in making those decisions. And that is what systems can do .

                              hypersoniq's avatar - 8ball
                              Pennsylvania
                              United States
                              Member #1340
                              April 6, 2003
                              2450 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: February 14, 2004, 8:51 am - IP Logged
                              Quote: Originally posted by BobP on January 27, 2004


                              I think all averages are deceptive and lead to false conclusions for lottery software that base prediction on them rather than a straight up count of dvents that occured. BobP




                              exactly. Averages imply that the numbers on the balls have some sort of mathematical significance, unfortunately they do not. Averaging the numbers on the top 3 finishers of a NASCAR race is not going to ever determine who wins the next one (unless purely by coincidence).

                              THe thing about trends... hindsight is always 20/20. This is why I don't think any one system will ever work, perhaps the key is in combining several, back-tested on the previous draw history, with counts on the intervals of successes vs. failures... in this way you can gauge which system to grab your numbers from by comparing them side by side over the entire draw history.

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