Lotto Architect v2.2Prev Topic Next Topic

New Topic New Poll

BobP

Dump Water Florida
United States
Member #380
June 5, 2002
3,578 Posts
Offline

May 18, 2004, 2:50 pm

Quote: Originally posted by apagogeas on May 18, 2004

LANTERN, Can you explain what Guru does for protection? Does he personally compiles an exe file for each user and then send it to each registered user by e-mail? It sounds like a good approach for protection. If I do that way, I'll possibly add only a demo version in the website so someone can test what the program is about and some features will not be available at all but this will be sufficient to understand what the program can do.

You receive an email with a tempory web site address you click on to download the program. I don't know whether he runs a fresh compile per customer or has a program for installing your name in it, but it's in there so you can't give it away with out giving out proof of your crime. Gail Howard also puts the customers name and serial number right on the program's main page.

It's one thing to have a program that requires a password to install, I keep an address book of them and make a sub-directory with the password or save the email as a .txt file with the program. However, programs where the password is no longer valid after you change hard drives or upgrade your computer and the company has gone out of business or says too much time has passed for a new password to software you already own, they really get my goat. BobP
RJOh

100

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
20,272 Posts
Offline

May 18, 2004, 3:06 pm

If a program can actually pick big winners in a reasonable amount of time, why would a programmer sell it at all? He could get rich by using it himself and once he was as rich as he wanted to be, sell it to someone else for millions$ and let them worry about the marketing risks if they didn't wish to use it to get richer themselves.
LANTERN

Tx
United States
Member #4,570
May 4, 2004
5,180 Posts
Offline

May 18, 2004, 3:14 pm

RJOh

SSSS!

Don't start to give Anastasios any such ideas.

You are very bright, but stay quiet, don't spoil this.
lottoarchitect

Greece
Member #2,815
November 18, 2003
502 Posts
Offline

May 18, 2004, 3:31 pm

Nice LANTERN

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

Tx
United States
Member #4,570
May 4, 2004
5,180 Posts
Offline

May 18, 2004, 3:41 pm

Apagogeas

The pictures of LottoSync Are being sent right know.

You should get them in a few minutes.
BobP

Dump Water Florida
United States
Member #380
June 5, 2002
3,578 Posts
Offline

May 18, 2004, 4:38 pm

I can't speak for everyone else, but if I could pick winning lottery numbers on my own I wouldn't be hanging around here. My hope is that you have a better idea how to win then I have.

Take the Gail Howard software. I can select the range of history to use from hundreds of choices. I can include up to 7 charts in the prediction process and assign a different weight factor to each. I can then choose how many numbers to wheel and select from a multitude of wheels with some filters. All in all the choices I must make to complete the path to a win probably have higher odds against then the actual game odds.

Gail Howard says the program picks the "best numbers" to play, I don't doubt by some probability factor they actually are the numbers due to come in. They don't but at least she tried by some criteria.

I would really love to see a bootstrapping automatic process for playing the software against the game history and finding the better path through it all for a shot at a win.

Gail's program should be telling me: "Past history now shows the most likely results coming from a range of 100 past draws using charts 3 weight factor 1,
chart 4 weight factor 0, chart 5, weight factor 2, etc. wheeling 24 numbers."

That after all this time it still doesn't shows how little progress we've made in the 15 or more years the program has been out.

Sure the program allows you to make your own choices, which are going to be pretty much the same conclusions the program makes anyway, but please make the attempt because most of use haven't won big on our own yet. BobP
LANTERN

Tx
United States
Member #4,570
May 4, 2004
5,180 Posts
Offline

May 18, 2004, 7:18 pm

Apagogeas

I don't remember Guru's words, but he said that he wrote the program's code in such a way that anybody taking a look at his program's code could not make any sense out of it, another person who says that his programs are very well protected is Ion Saliu.

So probably protecting a program against dissection and reverse engineering is the main priority.

But almost nobody would probably bother to do any of this unless the program is really good.

BobP has a question, several possible answers come to mind.

First, many people making lottery programs just don't have the faintest idea how to win, so of course they can't automate the process.

Second, as Apapogeas said, it might not be a good idea, since there might be many ways to do it and you yourself might know or find the best way to do it.

Third, if you have a program that automatically can give you the winning number, you would never again have to buy any more lottery programs and or updates, so it is bad for business, but I am sure that this is not the case here and that Apagogeas is really doing his best to make and sell the best possible lottery program that he can make and that this same program is the one that he is using himself to try to win the lottery, just as Guru

is also doing with his own program, so you know that both of them are trying their best to make the best possible lottery programs that they can, because both of them themselves want to use their programs to win the lottery for themselves.
RJOh

100

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
20,272 Posts
Offline

May 18, 2004, 8:04 pm

Quote: Originally posted by BobP on May 18, 2004

I can't speak for everyone else, but if I could pick winning lottery numbers on my own I wouldn't be hanging around here. My hope is that you have a better idea how to win then I have.

Bob are you saying that if you had a clue to how to win a lottery, you wouldn't be hanging around the Post sharing your knowledge? What make you hope that someone else may come hear with a better idea and share it? So far nobody here have said I won a lottery jackpot on this date, in this state and this is what I did, so you may be right, I hope not.
RJOh

* you don't need to buy every combination, just the winning ones *
BobP

Dump Water Florida
United States
Member #380
June 5, 2002
3,578 Posts
Offline

May 19, 2004, 2:04 am

Quote: Originally posted by RJOh on May 18, 2004

Quote: Originally posted by BobP on May 18, 2004

I can't speak for everyone else, but if I could pick winning lottery numbers on my own I wouldn't be hanging around here. My hope is that you have a better idea how to win then I have.

Bob are you saying that if you had a clue to how to win a lottery, you wouldn't be hanging around the Post sharing your knowledge? What make you hope that someone else may come hear with a better idea and share it? So far nobody here have said I won a lottery jackpot on this date, in this state and this is what I did, so you may be right, I hope not.
RJOh

Stone soup theory has it everyone contributes the little they have and the result is a wonderful soup. Here not everyone contributes their best and the soup is weak.

My uncle used to say, "If you hang around with losers you'll be a loser too."

This tells me we need some winners and we need them quick.

It's easy to say words about sharing when not faced with the prospect of actually having to do it. If you really discovered something, were knocking over say 5of6 wins like clockwork, how quick would you be to let the world and the lottery know so everyone could try it?

When I have an idea, I toss it into the arena. If I woke up knowing how to win, I think I'd want to win first, and then family should win, then friends, can't say about trying to give it away like one of those comedy shows where they try and give away money no one will take.

Just tonight I clicked on a link to a guaranteed way to win. $39. for a collection of 2if2 wheels for Pick-5 and Pick-6, oops just gave away the secret! Did it help? I don't think it does without the buildup to confidence that allows buyers to play those wheels and accept the small return on expense while hoping for a big one.

Many will play, some will win and write a nice letter of thanks.

Too often lottery systems are like the shiny thing you see on the road up ahead in the moon light only to find it's a fresh turd.

Gee that was depressing, now I need new ideas to cheer me up again. BobP
RJOh

100

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
20,272 Posts
Offline

May 19, 2004, 2:22 am

Quote: Originally posted by BobP on May 19, 2004

My uncle used to say, "If you hang around with losers you'll be a loser too."

This tells me we need some winners and we need them quick.

If you hang around with losers, you don't have to do much to look like a winner. Maybe that why all these guys selling a lottery program attract so much attention even though they haven't won a lottery either.
RJOh

* you don't need to buy every combination, just the winning ones *
Colin F

Australia
Member #3,084
December 22, 2003
328 Posts
Offline

May 19, 2004, 4:46 am

Quote: Originally posted by apagogeas on May 18, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
... no program can pick numbers by itself and win. This is because
prediction is a very subjective matter and requires some interaction
by the user. This is why lotto programs are considered tools and they
are not totally real prediction programs. As I said in another post,
a fully automated program is not a desired one because it will depend
solely on the programmer's intuition on prediction. ...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apagogeas
First, let me clear up a couple of points you made from the SUMS thread
which did not go unnoticed. You queried why anyone would want to use
Histories other than those generated by Lotto Operators. I would have
thought if there were no Histories or the Histories were for a short
period the answer would be obvious. The other reason is testing and it
is there you seemed to take great delight in joining with others to say
no PRNG would be suitable and there was talk about it not having enough
entropy.
Well let me quote from the Help file of Comscire, http://www.ComScire.com
the people that sell TRG's (True Random Number Generators ie the opposition
to PRNG's so we can't expect them to be too kind.
" ... Another generator that is believed to be random is the purely
mechanical generator, such as the type used for most lottery drawings.
Mechanical generators rely solely on complex initial conditions and
chaotic transformations to produce the appearance of randomness.
Precise quantification of bias in such a system is probably not possible
due to changes in the mechanical components over time, although there is
reason enough to believe that bias will exist.These drawing machines
produce almost no true entropy. ..."
I think that dismisses the entropy comments.
" ... The PCQNG has been tested extensively by well-known programs such
as Marsaglia's DIEHARD suite of tests and most of NIST's new tests.
ComScire's tests (ComScire RNGmeter), which are more stringent than
either of these, have also been applied to bit counts up to 10 billion.
The PCQNG has not failed any test for randomness. All other generators
we have tested fail ComScire's tests, with the exception of one type of
pseudorandom generator. ..."
Now I don't wish to suggest that my PRNG is the one they refer to but
merely to point out that they acknowledge that a PRNG can pass there
stringent tests. I would confidently say that my PRNG would pass there
tests as I apply many and varied tests myself. I would challenge you to
be able to distinguish between a History produced by my PRNG and that from
a mechanical generator.
This is a public Forum which means you can't expect to have your own
little private thread in which every other sentence extols some benefit
of your system and you luxuriate in a torrent of self-congratulation
for you own self gratification. I have left your thread alone but your
latest narcissistic posts have goaded me into thinking enough is enough.
I would be happy to pit my system against yours. In cricket it's referred
to as "putting runs on the board", in baseball I'm sure there's a similar expression and to tell you the truth I haven't a clue what the summer game is in Greece.
Have you ever tested your system to see whether it performs better than
Random Number Selections? Mine does - it's fully automated and there's not
a smidgen of intuition in it - creativity - yes, derived from number
crunching - yes. I think you would be well served to confine your remarks
to your own system and restrain yourself from making all encompassing remarks which imply you know everything about what everyone else has done or is doing.
Colin
lottoarchitect

Greece
Member #2,815
November 18, 2003
502 Posts
Offline

May 19, 2004, 7:56 am

Quote: Originally posted by BobP on May 19, 2004

Stone soup theory has it everyone contributes the little they have and the result is a wonderful soup. Here not everyone contributes their best and the soup is weak.

My uncle used to say, "If you hang around with losers you'll be a loser too."

This tells me we need some winners and we need them quick.

It's easy to say words about sharing when not faced with the prospect of actually having to do it. If you really discovered something, were knocking over say 5of6 wins like clockwork, how quick would you be to let the world and the lottery know so everyone could try it?

When I have an idea, I toss it into the arena. If I woke up knowing how to win, I think I'd want to win first, and then family should win, then friends, can't say about trying to give it away like one of those comedy shows where they try and give away money no one will take.

Just tonight I clicked on a link to a guaranteed way to win. $39. for a collection of 2if2 wheels for Pick-5 and Pick-6, oops just gave away the secret! Did it help? I don't think it does without the buildup to confidence that allows buyers to play those wheels and accept the small return on expense while hoping for a big one.

Many will play, some will win and write a nice letter of thanks.

Too often lottery systems are like the shiny thing you see on the road up ahead in the moon light only to find it's a fresh turd.

Gee that was depressing, now I need new ideas to cheer me up again. BobP

BobP, what is your own contribution then? You could say that only if you are the only one who contributes here and anyone else uses it without contributing anything.
If I could pick 5of6 with a simple gameslip like clockwork as you say, trust me, no-one will ever know of my existance. No-one can achieve this, so why do you keep mention it all the time? What I have is a system that allows to have 5of6 but not the way you want it to be: a magic wand. From my point of view, it is better than almost anything out there that claims to predict draws. I never said I can win 5of6/6of6 with 1,2 or 3 games in a regular basis. So, the rest of your comments is irrelevant to what I have done.

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

Greece
Member #2,815
November 18, 2003
502 Posts
Offline

May 19, 2004, 8:33 am

Quote: Originally posted by Colin F on May 19, 2004

Quote: Originally posted by apagogeas on May 18, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
... no program can pick numbers by itself and win. This is because
prediction is a very subjective matter and requires some interaction
by the user. This is why lotto programs are considered tools and they
are not totally real prediction programs. As I said in another post,
a fully automated program is not a desired one because it will depend
solely on the programmer's intuition on prediction. ...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apagogeas
First, let me clear up a couple of points you made from the SUMS thread
which did not go unnoticed. You queried why anyone would want to use
Histories other than those generated by Lotto Operators. I would have
thought if there were no Histories or the Histories were for a short
period the answer would be obvious. The other reason is testing and it
is there you seemed to take great delight in joining with others to say
no PRNG would be suitable and there was talk about it not having enough
entropy.
Well let me quote from the Help file of Comscire, http://www.ComScire.com
the people that sell TRG's (True Random Number Generators ie the opposition
to PRNG's so we can't expect them to be too kind.
" ... Another generator that is believed to be random is the purely
mechanical generator, such as the type used for most lottery drawings.
Mechanical generators rely solely on complex initial conditions and
chaotic transformations to produce the appearance of randomness.
Precise quantification of bias in such a system is probably not possible
due to changes in the mechanical components over time, although there is
reason enough to believe that bias will exist.These drawing machines
produce almost no true entropy. ..."
I think that dismisses the entropy comments.
" ... The PCQNG has been tested extensively by well-known programs such
as Marsaglia's DIEHARD suite of tests and most of NIST's new tests.
ComScire's tests (ComScire RNGmeter), which are more stringent than
either of these, have also been applied to bit counts up to 10 billion.
The PCQNG has not failed any test for randomness. All other generators
we have tested fail ComScire's tests, with the exception of one type of
pseudorandom generator. ..."
Now I don't wish to suggest that my PRNG is the one they refer to but
merely to point out that they acknowledge that a PRNG can pass there
stringent tests. I would confidently say that my PRNG would pass there
tests as I apply many and varied tests myself. I would challenge you to
be able to distinguish between a History produced by my PRNG and that from
a mechanical generator.
This is a public Forum which means you can't expect to have your own
little private thread in which every other sentence extols some benefit
of your system and you luxuriate in a torrent of self-congratulation
for you own self gratification. I have left your thread alone but your
latest narcissistic posts have goaded me into thinking enough is enough.
I would be happy to pit my system against yours. In cricket it's referred
to as "putting runs on the board", in baseball I'm sure there's a similar expression and to tell you the truth I haven't a clue what the summer game is in Greece.
Have you ever tested your system to see whether it performs better than
Random Number Selections? Mine does - it's fully automated and there's not
a smidgen of intuition in it - creativity - yes, derived from number
crunching - yes. I think you would be well served to confine your remarks
to your own system and restrain yourself from making all encompassing remarks which imply you know everything about what everyone else has done or is doing.
Colin

Colin F, why are you so confused??
if there is no history then there is no lottery to play either.
PRNG: good to generate a set of numbers, irrelevant to predict a lottery.
I'll explain this: if lotteries are truly random dvents, then each draw has nothing to do with any previous history information. If this is the case, then a RNG (or even a PRNG) can not perform better than luck either. It will simply produce a set of numbers, randomly picked, and there is not any good excuse to prove that this set is better than picking numbers by yourself.
If lotteries are not truly random, then they are biased somehow. An RNG (or even a PRNG) is designed to generate (in theory) an unbiased set of numbers which does not use any history information. This should perform even worse, as you don't take into account any bias information available.
In either case, an RNG/PRNG is totally unsuitable for predicting lotteries; it is just good to generate a random number set.
A conclusion: the history is used to determine patterns, bias information and any other property that could possibly lead to a better prediction. This cannot be done by an RNG/PRNG as it is not designed to work with such information.
If you make it work with history information, then it is not an RNG/PRNG anymore; it is a prediction system.
So, if your PRNG performs like a TRNG, well done but still canot be used for lotteries. Any such RNG system is only suitable for lotteries that produced by RNG systems as well. To be effective, both the lottery commission and you must have the same RNG generator and have its initial conditions exaclty the same. This is impossible, so still RNG is not suitable to predict this case either.
"narcissistic posts": Excellent! Where exactly is this?
I don't have to take your challenge as this is childish behaviour.
About testing my system: I'm getting bored saying this all the time. It works better than other systems. Are you happy now?
Apagogeas

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

Australia
Member #3,084
December 22, 2003
328 Posts
Offline

May 19, 2004, 6:22 pm

apagogeas
That's about the answer I expected and reminded me of why I've left you alone. I believe the majority of members and lookers are intelligent so I don't have a problem with anyone comparing what I posted with your drivel.
Now, before you tuck yourself in of a night don't forget to stand in front of the mirror and blow kisses to yourself for ... let's see... half an hour, say.
Enjoy yourself
Colin
Colin F

Australia
Member #3,084
December 22, 2003
328 Posts
Offline

May 19, 2004, 6:33 pm

Dragon
Stop surmising. Do some work. If your genuinely interested in the subject put your undoubted but unapplied expertise to work. Waffling on about neural networks will get you nowhere.
Blunt language - but someone's got to wake you up. You've told us a bit about your background. How, much of that expertise have you applied to actually analyzing Lotto Draws? Start with the fact that after about 500 draws most of the numbers have appeared about the same number of times.
You can be a Professor, Doctor whatever but until you make a contribution which shows you've done some research into the subject your just another waffler to me and I think a few others.
Work Dragon. We want Work!
Colin

New Topic New Poll

Subscribe to this topic

Lotto Architect v2.2Prev TopicNext Topic

Lotto Architect v2.2Prev Topic Next Topic