Welcome Guest
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

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?

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

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..

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

PS sample 800.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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?

 Page 6 of 6