Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 10, 2016, 7:35 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

LottoSync v1.7 issues !!

Topic closed. 88 replies. Last post 13 years ago by paul762.

Page 6 of 6
PrintE-mailLink

United States
Member #1759
June 29, 2003
1156 Posts
Offline
Posted: February 11, 2004, 7:08 am - IP Logged

When you say Pick-4 are you referring to the Daily games like the Pick-3 and Pick-4?

    Avatar

    Canada
    Member #2859
    November 23, 2003
    463 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: February 11, 2004, 10:17 am - IP Logged

    Excellent Guru, sounds like a great program when it's done, I'll be waiting

    ps so the keno part can do both 70 and 80 number keno? and what would be the predicted numbers, ie can i tell it to give me 10 numbers or 20 numbers or 8 numbers etc etc?

    GoodWork Marco !!!


      China
      Member #3032
      December 16, 2003
      1081 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: February 11, 2004, 11:26 am - IP Logged

      Guru,have you really succeed on lottery?If so,have you won for yourself?

      just checking something out~

      goose

        Avatar
        N.ireland
        United Kingdom
        Member #2962
        December 6, 2003
        69 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: February 12, 2004, 4:09 am - IP Logged

        Well Guru 6/49 lotto 3 of the 6 in the 10 picked numbers a result..

          Avatar
          N.ireland
          United Kingdom
          Member #2962
          December 6, 2003
          69 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: February 12, 2004, 4:11 am - IP Logged

          PS sample 800.

            lottoarchitect's avatar - waveform

            Greece
            Member #2815
            November 18, 2003
            502 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: February 12, 2004, 9:29 pm - IP Logged
            Quote: O

            If you have something to do, at least do it well...


              Belgium
              Member #2220
              September 2, 2003
              553 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: February 13, 2004, 1:05 am - IP Logged

              No apagogeas I totally disagree with you:

              "If you can determine what is unreliable and what is not, you can use only the reliable parts. So Reliable[2]+Reliable[4]=Reliable  "

              That's just the whole big deal. You would not come up with unreliable data in the first place if you knew how to determine reliable from unreliable. You are assuming things you cannot make real.

               

              Suppose there is a big pile of oranges and apples in front of you, and you are blind, have no touch and cannot smell.

              You need to collect the oranges and not the apples, but you cannot see or feel the difference between oranges and apples.

              So you start collecting several groups of fruit with a unreliable fuzzy method wich will contain a random amount of oranges and apples. (this is the unreliable data because the method or methods of collecting were unreliable)

              Now, do you really think if you start mixing together the different groups you picked and repick from them, you are gonna end up with more oranges ????? 

              No absolutely not !!!!

              The point is, You need to find only 1 RELIABLE WAY to pick your oranges.

              This is so clear, I cannot see why you can doubt about this.

                lottoarchitect's avatar - waveform

                Greece
                Member #2815
                November 18, 2003
                502 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: February 13, 2004, 10:11 am - IP Logged

                Ok Guru, let me rephrase it. At first what do we mean by reliable? A method that always produces 100% accurate results? There is not such a thing in lottery methods. Reliable should be a method that produces correct results far beyond of what we could consider it just luck. I'll ask you this question: is it reliable a method that produces 100% incorrect results (or more accurately, produces incorrect results far beyond of what we consider it luck)? I say YES! You just have to use it's negation to obtain correct results but it still is a reliable method to use in this sense. The BIG problem is with methods that produce correct results close to the rates of pure luck. They should be avoided at all costs.

                The example of oranges & apples is irrelevant to what I'm saying here. It is the same like asking me to pick numbers from 2 different lotteries and you want me to pick numbers only for the one lottery. Of course, all chances are against me the way you put it. I'll use your example in another way: suppose the oranges are the reliable methods and the apples are the unreliable ones. You still don't smell & you are blind & don't feel either. I want you to pick an orange (a reliable method). Can you do this? As you say, you can find a reliable method (for example, the algorithm you use in your programs), thus you are not either blind or you can feel or whatever. So we have one reliable method at the moment. Now, remove this orange from the pile. Now try to pick another orange. Sure you can as long as you manage to pick an orange before. Now we have two different reliable oranges (reliable methods). If both are reliable, why don't you use both the results generated by them (Reliable1+Reliable2=Reliable)? The chances are that you can further restrict the results (anyone whould like that) but it should be still reliable... or not? If you say not, then your oranges are not reliable as they supposed to be. Because I cannot see a reason to trust the results of only one orange and not from another orange as long as both of them considered reliable. Now its my turn to say: this is so clear, why can't you understand this?

                If you have something to do, at least do it well...

                  paul762's avatar - lion

                  United Kingdom
                  Member #3002
                  December 11, 2003
                  477 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: February 28, 2004, 2:40 am - IP Logged

                  guru, earlier in this post you said that there would be no difference in predictions if i used 499 or 500 well ive got news, i just played uk 7/27 with sample 270 and then sample 269 and guess what? two different predictions!! take a look:-

                  sample 269= 3-4-7-9-10-11-14-16-20-25

                  sample 270= 2-3-6-7-9-11-12-13-14-26

                  so i was right when i said about the person who wins the jackpot with 400 samples and the unlucky one who used 399 wasnt i?


                    Belgium
                    Member #2220
                    September 2, 2003
                    553 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: February 28, 2004, 5:29 am - IP Logged

                    No Paul:

                    It could very well have been the other way around. Even 2 testruns with the same sample size don't result in exactly the same prediction. There will in most cases be an overlap of numbers though. Just as your 2 runs at 269 and 270. (Read the manual carefully please)

                    The calculations are not strict. there is no deterministic end result like 1+1 = 2. A lottosync prediction is probabilistic. That is the major issue here. Other softs calculate random dvents in a deterministic way. This is unlike nature. For instance if you would construct a very precise machine that drops a pingpong ball on a surface time after time in exactly the same way. You would see that the pingpong ball does not come to rest always in exactly the same place. The end result will differ, but if you would repeat this same controlled process many times you would notice that this dvent favors certain result places, or hot landing spots. That is exactly what lottosync does, and that is why multiple end results will "never" be exactly the same.


                      Belgium
                      Member #2220
                      September 2, 2003
                      553 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: February 28, 2004, 5:57 am - IP Logged

                      I'll expand a little bit more on the above:

                      suppose the surface on which the pingpong ball drops is perfectly flat. In that case the result will be difficult to trace. The ball will tend to land in very different places.

                      But if the surface is filled with bumps and holes, the probable amount of end results will decrease. The result will become more predictable.

                      Ultimately, if you would drop the pingpongball in a  funnel shape, the end result would always be the same (deterministic).

                      Given the circumstances, randomness will always be something between deterministic and true total chaos.

                      It's the same in lotto. (forget the physical world for this and try to see only the numbers. Although lotto results are drawn by physical devices, the rules of randomness do also solely apply to the number sequences themselves) Some previous draws leave a "mathematical more or less flat surface" . In these cases Lottosync will suffer, and will result in very different prediction runs. In other cases the left mathematical surface is more "bumpy". This is where lottosync will perform better, because there are a lot less probable outcomes. These so called "bumps and holes" are created by complex attracting and repelling forces between the "numbers" themselves. (these "forces" however are not physical, they are abstract, but measurable)

                      Also don't forget that numbers are only images (representations) of abstract concepts that do not exist in the physical world. The same rules would apply to many other abstract concepts.

                        paul762's avatar - lion

                        United Kingdom
                        Member #3002
                        December 11, 2003
                        477 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: February 28, 2004, 6:09 am - IP Logged

                        thanks guru, i think i get


                          Belgium
                          Member #2220
                          September 2, 2003
                          553 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: February 28, 2004, 6:12 am - IP Logged

                          The cumulated results would most likely become increasingly similar, but they would probably never truly even out.

                            paul762's avatar - lion

                            United Kingdom
                            Member #3002
                            December 11, 2003
                            477 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: February 28, 2004, 6:26 am - IP Logged

                            guru, if results never even out then surely the sampling is very important to a specific game and perhaps there should be more emphasis placed on finding the correct sample for each game or even having later lottosync versions being able to work this out automatically to get the best results for whichever game you play.what do you think?