Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 9, 2016, 6:13 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Other wheels

Topic closed. 12 replies. Last post 12 years ago by BobP.

Page 1 of 1
PrintE-mailLink
Avatar
Melbourne
Australia
Member #5731
July 18, 2004
36 Posts
Offline
Posted: August 10, 2004, 11:19 pm - IP Logged
There are many posts in this forum relating to wheels, and for good reason.  Wheels are a fundamental component of many lotto programs and allow us to play an enlarged number set at reduced prices. From a player point of view wheels need to live up to their guarantee and whilst doing this they need to operate at a minimum number of ticket sets to enable one to keep playing costs to a minimum. So I thought I might have a look around to see the wheeling provided in some of the current software, but be advised this is by no means a comprehensive survey of all the Lotto software available. Others may be able to add input as to what they have found. My purpose was to try to find some better wheels than those I am currently using which have already come with the program I use, or I have generated using Iningua. (I actually found that there aren't better ones.)  There may of course be better wheels out there but then you can't always get at them to use easily and readily in your program of choice. And your program of choice must also have the ability to import them if you can find them.

 

In an adjacent thread I see Mr Sedertree is offering a very good application for developing quality wheels and this will be followed up. I also note a substantive list of quality wheels available in the Lotto Hat program. Also there is an extensive set of quality wheels (and rated one's at that) available for use at the resources page of the Lotto Architect website. Lotto Whiz builds wheels on the fly; at the small end these are good but as soon as something big is required they tend to become rather bulky when compared to World Record statistics. I also had a look at Lotto Pro, but on at least the first observation of this program I am wondering about their wheels.  Their wheel parameters in terms of hit guarantee and ticket sets required to meet the guarantee don't seem to add up. And as there are probably a few users of this program in this forum I thought I might advise what I have observed, albeit reluctantly, as I do not wish to be seen as criticising Lotto Pro. (You may have read in another thread I am a bit keen on the LArchitect product.) The Pick 7 wheels in particular look a bit suspect. Many of the wheels seem short of the necessary number sets to ensure the guarantee. Has anybody any extensive experience with them? The wheels mentioned below are nearly all the Pick 7 abbreviated wheels included in Lotto Pro. Coverage would seem to only achieve some  60 to 70% (as tested with ININUGA program), so whilst they should be close cover wheels (offering 100% coverage), they are open cover wheels which means the specified guarantee is not offered. The Pick 6 wheels do not seem to suffer from any problems other than they might be a bit larger than can be optimally achieved and available elsewhere. And with these Pick 7 wheels I may of course have missed something in terms of their specification and that they are not offering full coverage.

 



8  numbers 7 if 7 = 7  (WR=8)
9  numbers 7 if 7 = 28 (WR=36)

9  numbers 6 if 6 = 12 (WR=16)
10 numbers 6 if 6 = 30 (WR=45)

11 numbers 6 if 7 = 15 (WR=19)
12 numbers 6 if 7 = 27 (WR=35)
13 numbers 6 if 7 = 42 (WR=61)

11 numbers 5 if 5 = 30 (WR=34)

9  numbers 5 if 6 = 3  (WR=4)
10 numbers 5 if 6 = 3  (WR=5)
11 numbers 5 if 6 = 7  (WR=10)
12 numbers 5 if 6 = 12 (WR=16)
13 numbers 5 if 6 = 18 (WR=24)
14 numbers 5 if 6 = 28 (WR=36)

14 numbers 5 if 7 = 12 (WR=14)
15 numbers 5 if 7 = 15 (WR=24)
16 numbers 5 if 7 = 21 (WR=31)
    BobP's avatar - bobp avatar.png
    Dump Water Florida
    United States
    Member #380
    June 5, 2002
    3104 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: August 11, 2004, 3:22 am - IP Logged

    For big wheels you want to get a copy of CoverMaster, the older version 54 is available here http://www.lotto-logix.com/wheellinks.html and there is also a link to the latest version free with a UK ebay registration, get both as it can take a few days to get the password back for the newer.

    While you're there visit http://www.lotto-logix.com/lottosoft.html and get the demo copy of Lottery Director with 800 free wheels and Lottery Cracker2 which makes a balanced 6/48 number wheel in 8 lines. 

    The tightest wheel isn't always the best, especially if made up of two smaller wheels sitting side by side, they can make winning a jackpot virtually impossible.

    BobP

      Avatar
      Melbourne
      Australia
      Member #5731
      July 18, 2004
      36 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: August 11, 2004, 10:20 pm - IP Logged

      BobP,



      Thanks for the links in your post. Good sources indeed and I now have them to do some work with.



      relowe

        lottoarchitect's avatar - waveform

        Greece
        Member #2815
        November 18, 2003
        502 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: August 12, 2004, 5:59 am - IP Logged

        I think what relowe tries to say is that when a program declares eg 5 if 7 guarantee, then it has to be an 100% cover wheel. I made my tests on some of the above wheels and indeed they do not offer 100% guarantee.

        BobP, the 1st target of a wheel is to offer the specified guarantee at a minimum set of lines.

        2nd target is to offer more hits on the guarantee prize level and all upwards categories with the same minimal tickets size.

        3rd target is to be a balanced wheel (all numbers have equal chance to appear, distribution of pointer numbers should look random).

        If you want to have many cumulative prizes in a wheel (eg 100% 2 5if 7 prizes), then obviously don't expect to have a minimal set of tickets for that wheel. You have to determine a trade-off point of tickets vs prizes. Still, current minimal ticket wheels do offer multiple ptizes (some combinations appear more than once).

        Relowe, thanks for your comments. Indeed I try to make the best wheels and the largest database ever made in a lottery program so everyone can benefit and play his own prefered strategy. So far I have about 950 wheels included in the database.

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

          BobP's avatar - bobp avatar.png
          Dump Water Florida
          United States
          Member #380
          June 5, 2002
          3104 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: August 13, 2004, 12:48 am - IP Logged
          Quote: Originally posted by apagogeas on August 12, 2004



          I think what relowe tries to say is that when a program declares eg 5 if 7 guarantee, then it has to be an 100% cover wheel. I made my tests on some of the above wheels and indeed they do not offer 100% guarantee.

          BobP, the 1st target of a wheel is to offer the specified guarantee at a minimum set of lines.

          2nd target is to offer more hits on the guarantee prize level and all upwards categories with the same minimal tickets size.

          3rd target is to be a balanced wheel (all numbers have equal chance to appear, distribution of pointer numbers should look random).

          If you want to have many cumulative prizes in a wheel (eg 100% 2 5if 7 prizes), then obviously don't expect to have a minimal set of tickets for that wheel. You have to determine a trade-off point of tickets vs prizes. Still, current minimal ticket wheels do offer multiple ptizes (some combinations appear more than once).

          Relowe, thanks for your comments. Indeed I try to make the best wheels and the largest database ever made in a lottery program so everyone can benefit and play his own prefered strategy. So far I have about 950 wheels included in the database.





          As a lottery player trying to win, which 100% 3if6in18 number wheel would you rather play? 

          The tightest, but split . . . (18,6,3,6,7)

           1  2  3  4  5  6
           1  2  7  8  9 10
           1  2  7  8 11 12
           3  4  5  6  7  8
           3  4  9 10 11 12
           5  6  9 10 11 12
          13 14 15 16 17 18

          Perfect balance but 2 more lines . . . (18,6,3,6,9)

           1  2  6 13 15 16
           1  7  8  9 10 17
           1  7 11 12 17 18
           2  3  4 13 17 18
           2  5 11 12 13 14
           3  4  6  9 10 16
           3  4  9 10 14 15
           5  6  7  8 14 16
           5  8 11 12 15 18

          Or am I better off with 8 lines that are neither tightest or balanced . . . (18,6,3,6,8)

           1  2  3  4  5  7
           1  2  3  4 11 12
           1  2  3  8  9 10
           5  6 13 14 15 16
           5  7 11 12 17 18
           6  8 10 14 17 18
           7  8  9 10 11 12
           9 13 15 16 17 18

          I believe the third would be my choice, how about you?  BobP

            lottoarchitect's avatar - waveform

            Greece
            Member #2815
            November 18, 2003
            502 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: August 13, 2004, 7:34 am - IP Logged

            BobP, give me some more days to analyse these wheels. I work on a wheel analyser system to reveal all good and bad properties of wheels. For now, surely I'll not use the 2nd wheel. I would prefer the 1st one (fewer tickets) because adding tickets increases cost and also there are more than one (18,6,3,6,7)
             possible wheels. Is your suggested one here the best? Or there is another (18,6,3,6,7) which offers better hit results? From my work, I've found out that among all valid wheels of a specific type (eg (18,6,3,6,7)), there are some that are much better in terms of hit rates than simply provide a valid wheel.

            By observation of those wheels I can say:

            1st wheel:  The combination 3 4 5 is included twice which means if you place your favorite numbers to occupy these positions and they come out, then you have 2 3-prizes. Also, the 1st wheel offers 2 chances for 2 4-prize hits (comb. 1 2 7 8 and 9 10 11 12).

            This probably is the case with your 2nd (comp. 3 4 9 -> 2 3-prizes) and 3rd wheel too (comb. 1 2 3 -> 3 3-prizes and probably 1 2 3 4 -> 2 4-prizes if you are lucky). Possibly they contain more prizes too but I can't see them by observation.

            As you can see, the 1st wheel still offers chances to win multiple prizes in fewer tickets. Is there any property of the 3rd wheel I haven't noticed?

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

              BobP's avatar - bobp avatar.png
              Dump Water Florida
              United States
              Member #380
              June 5, 2002
              3104 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: August 15, 2004, 3:25 am - IP Logged

              You realize of course you've j

                lottoarchitect's avatar - waveform

                Greece
                Member #2815
                November 18, 2003
                502 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: August 15, 2004, 5:28 am - IP Logged
                Quote: O

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

                  BobP's avatar - bobp avatar.png
                  Dump Water Florida
                  United States
                  Member #380
                  June 5, 2002
                  3104 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: August 16, 2004, 1:45 am - IP Logged

                  The breakdowns follow but as you know there is little to compare as each uses a different number of lines and all guarantee 3if6in18.

                  My thinking is the first wheel in 7 lines is a 3if4of6in12numbers 6 lines and then an additional line with six more numbers is tacked on.  A single line is a 3if3of6 wheel so the 3if3 and 3if4 wheels make a 3if6 overall.  The problem is our desire isn't to win a 3# prize it's to do better and getting all 6 winning numbers among 6 or 12 is far less likely then among 18.

                  The second and third wheel do the same job the same way, but the third does it for a line less without being split into two independent portions so I'd use the lower priced non-split wheel.   Though admittedly I'd likely remake it without the 1-2-3 redundency in the first three lines unless I saw a need for bankers in those positions.  BobP

                  First wheel 7 lines.

                  T if M    Tested Covered        % Not Covered    %
                  ----------------------------------------------------
                  2 If 2 :    153      81  52.94118      72  47.05882
                  2 If 3 :    816    816 100.00000      0  0.00000
                  2 If 4 :  3,060  3,060 100.00000      0  0.00000
                  2 If 5 :  8,568  8,568 100.00000      0  0.00000
                  2 If 6 :  18,564  18,564 100.00000      0  0.00000
                  2 If 7 :  31,824  31,824 100.00000      0  0.00000
                  3 If 3 :    816    128  15.68627    688  84.31373
                  3 If 4 :  3,060  1,398  45.68627  1,662  54.31373
                  3 If 5 :  8,568  6,888  80.39216  1,680  19.60784
                  3 If 6 :  18,564  18,564 100.00000      0  0.00000
                  3 If 7 :  31,824  31,824 100.00000      0  0.00000
                  4 If 4 :  3,060    102  3.33333  2,958  96.66667
                  4 If 5 :  8,568  1,212  14.14566  7,356  85.85434
                  4 If 6 :  18,564  6,252  33.67809  12,312  66.32191
                  4 If 7 :  31,824  18,960  59.57768  12,864  40.42232
                  5 If 5 :  8,568      42  0.49020  8,526  99.50980
                  5 If 6 :  18,564    499  2.68800  18,065  97.31200
                  5 If 7 :  31,824  2,712  8.52187  29,112  91.47813
                  6 If 7 :  31,824      84  0.26395  31,740  99.73605


                  2nd wheel 9 lines.

                  T if M    Tested Covered        % Not Covered    %
                  ----------------------------------------------------
                  2 If 2 :    153    110  71.89542      43  28.10458
                  2 If 3 :    816    814  99.75490      2  0.24510
                  2 If 4 :  3,060  3,060 100.00000      0  0.00000
                  2 If 5 :  8,568  8,568 100.00000      0  0.00000
                  2 If 6 :  18,564  18,564 100.00000      0  0.00000
                  2 If 7 :  31,824  31,824 100.00000      0  0.00000
                  3 If 3 :    816    173  21.20098    643  78.79902
                  3 If 4 :  3,060  1,873  61.20915  1,187  38.79085
                  3 If 5 :  8,568  7,967  92.98553    601  7.01447
                  3 If 6 :  18,564  18,564 100.00000      0  0.00000
                  3 If 7 :  31,824  31,824 100.00000      0  0.00000
                  4 If 4 :  3,060    134  4.37908  2,926  95.62092
                  4 If 5 :  8,568  1,617  18.87255  6,951  81.12745
                  4 If 6 :  18,564  8,404  45.27042  10,160  54.72958
                  4 If 7 :  31,824  22,408  70.41227  9,416  29.58773
                  5 If 5 :  8,568      54  0.63025  8,514  99.36975
                  5 If 6 :  18,564    653  3.51756  17,911  96.48244
                  5 If 7 :  31,824  3,597  11.30279  28,227  88.69721
                  6 If 7 :  31,824    108  0.33937  31,716  99.66063


                  3rd wheel 8 lines.

                  T if M    Tested Covered        % Not Covered    %
                  ----------------------------------------------------
                  2 If 2 :    153      96  62.74510      57  37.25490
                  2 If 3 :    816    808  99.01961      8  0.98039
                  2 If 4 :  3,060  3,060 100.00000      0  0.00000
                  2 If 5 :  8,568  8,568 100.00000      0  0.00000
                  2 If 6 :  18,564  18,564 100.00000      0  0.00000
                  2 If 7 :  31,824  31,824 100.00000      0  0.00000
                  3 If 3 :    816    152  18.62745    664  81.37255
                  3 If 4 :  3,060  1,637  53.49673  1,423  46.50327
                  3 If 5 :  8,568  7,441  86.84641  1,127  13.15359
                  3 If 6 :  18,564  18,564 100.00000      0  0.00000
                  3 If 7 :  31,824  31,824 100.00000      0  0.00000
                  4 If 4 :  3,060    119  3.88889  2,941  96.11111
                  4 If 5 :  8,568  1,416  16.52661  7,152  83.47339
                  4 If 6 :  18,564  7,346  39.57121  11,218  60.42879
                  4 If 7 :  31,824  20,577  64.65875  11,247  35.34125
                  5 If 5 :  8,568      48  0.56022  8,520  99.43978
                  5 If 6 :  18,564    580  3.12433  17,984  96.87567
                  5 If 7 :  31,824  3,171  9.96418  28,653  90.03582
                  6 If 7 :  31,824      96  0.30166  31,728  99.69834

                    lottoarchitect's avatar - waveform

                    Greece
                    Member #2815
                    November 18, 2003
                    502 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: August 16, 2004, 11:49 am - IP Logged

                    I'll not disagree with you. Your 1st wheel is generated using two different wheels. I have an (18,6,3,6,7) which is not a split wheel mix. Strangely enough, your 1st wheel is better at 4if7 hits than mine. This observation is enough to understand that all (18,6,3,6,7) are not the same in terms of hits and this what I try to say. Possibly there are many better 7 ticket wheels.

                    Now, the inclusion of another ticket enhances the hits. I'll try to show some more in-depth analysis regarding the trade-off limit I mentioned above.

                    I'll describe an easy way to see (not mathematically strict) why the 3rd wheel (8 tickets) is not neccessary better even if we have more hits provided.

                    First of all, addition of this one ticket increases the cost by 8/7 tickets=1,1428 or 14,28% compared to the 7 tickets wheel.

                    I'll show that the addition of this line offers a better hit result but in fact the costs are greater than the possible earnings you expect by using this (18,6,3,6,8) wheel.

                    wheel 1 vs wheel 3 comparison (I omit x if 7 guarantee as this is not applicable to Pick 6 games and all 2 if x hits as they do not provide any prizes).

                    (x) is total to cover, -> improvement rate

                    3 if 3 : 128 - 152 (816) -> 2,94%

                    3 if 4 : 1398 - 1637 (3060) -> 7,81%

                    3 if 5 : 6888 - 7441 (8568) -> 6,45%

                    4 if 4 : 102 - 119 (3060) -> 0,55%

                    4 if 5 : 1212 - 1416 (8568) -> 2,38%

                    4 if 6 : 6252 - 7346 (18564) -> 5,89%

                    5 if 5 : 42 - 48 (8568) -> 0,07%

                    5 if 6 : 499 - 580 (18564) -> 0,43%

                    Compare the performance of increased rates the the increase of cost rate. No case is greater than 14,28% required to have a better hit ratio compared to the required increase of cost. Effectively this (18,6,3,6,8) wheel performs worse than the (18,6,3,6,7) even if it provides better chance to hit on higher prizes. This is what I try to say. No need to mention the (18,6,3,6,9); this is possibly even worse.

                    Here is another way (more mathematically strict) to see the same "phenomenal profit" of the 8 ticket wheel but if fact it provides worse results than the 7 ticket wheel.

                    1st wheel (18,6,3,6,7) hit ratio tables. The table shows the chance to have this wheel hit a specified prize after x draws (vertical axis)

                            3 if 3      3 if 4      3 if 5     4 if 4      4 if 5      4 if 6      5 if 5      5 if 6
                    01  15,69%  45,69%  80,39%  03,33%  14,15%  33,68%  00,49%  02,69%
                    02  26,45%  49,63%  31,53%  06,44%  24,29%  44,67%  00,98%  05,23%
                    03  33,45%  40,43%  09,27%  09,34%  31,28%  44,44%  01,46%  07,64%
                    04  37,61%  29,28%  02,42%  12,04%  35,81%  39,30%  01,93%  09,91%
                    05  39,64%  19,88%  00,59%  14,55%  38,43%  32,58%  02,40%  12,05%
                    06  40,10%  12,96%  00,14%  16,88%  39,59%  25,93%  02,87%  14,07%
                    07  39,45%  08,21%  00,03%  19,04%  39,65%  20,06%  03,33%  15,98%
                    08  38,01%  05,10%  00,01%  21,03%  38,91%  15,21%  03,79%  17,77%
                    09  36,05%  03,11%  00,00%  22,87%  37,58%  11,35%  04,24%  19,45%
                    10  33,78%  01,88%  00,00%  24,57%  35,85%  08,36%  04,69%  21,03%
                    11  31,33%  01,12%  00,00%  26,12%  33,86%  06,10%  05,13%  22,52%
                    12  28,81%  00,67%  00,00%  27,55%  31,71%  04,41%  05,57%  23,90%
                    13  26,32%  00,39%  00,00%  28,85%  29,49%  03,17%  06,01%  25,20%
                    14  23,90%  00,23%  00,00%  30,03%  27,27%  02,26%  06,44%  26,41%
                    15  21,59%  00,13%  00,00%  31,11%  25,08%  01,61%  06,86%  27,53%
                    16  19,41%  00,08%  00,00%  32,07%  22,97%  01,14%  07,29%  28,58%

                    Now follows the same tables for the 3rd wheel (18,6,3,6,8).

                           3 if 3      3 if 4      3 if 5      4 if 4     4 if 5       4 if 6      5 if 5      5 if 6
                    01  18,63%  53,50%  86,85%  03,89%  16,53%  39,57%  00,56%  03,12%
                    02  30,32%  49,76%  22,85%  07,48%  27,59%  47,82%  01,11%  06,05%
                    03  37,00%  34,71%  04,51%  10,78%  34,55%  43,35%  01,66%  08,80%
                    04  40,15%  21,52%  00,79%  13,81%  38,45%  34,93%  02,20%  11,36%
                    05  40,84%  12,51%  00,13%  16,59%  40,12%  26,38%  02,74%  13,76%
                    06  39,87%  06,98%  00,02%  19,14%  40,19%  19,13%  03,27%  15,99%
                    07  37,85%  03,79%  00,00%  21,46%  39,14%  13,49%  03,79%  18,08%
                    08  35,20%  02,01%  00,00%  23,57%  37,33%  09,31%  04,31%  20,01%
                    09  32,23%  01,05%  00,00%  25,48%  35,06%  06,33%  04,82%  21,81%
                    10  29,14%  00,54%  00,00%  27,21%  32,52%  04,25%  05,33%  23,48%
                    11  26,08%  00,28%  00,00%  28,77%  29,86%  02,83%  05,83%  25,02%
                    12  23,15%  00,14%  00,00%  30,17%  27,19%  01,86%  06,32%  26,44%
                    13  20,41%  00,07%  00,00%  31,41%  24,59%  01,22%  06,81%  27,75%
                    14  17,89%  00,04%  00,00%  32,51%  22,10%  00,79%  07,29%  28,95%
                    15  15,59%  00,02%  00,00%  33,48%  19,77%  00,51%  07,77%  30,05%
                    16  13,53%  00,01%  00,00%  34,32%  17,60%  00,33%  08,24%  31,05%

                    Now, if we play 7 times the wheel (18,6,3,6,8), we can play 8 times the (18,6,3,6,7) wheel with the same cost because in 7 draws, we'll play 7 more tickets in total using the (18,6,3,6,8) wheel. Thus we can play once more at the same cost using the (18,6,3,6,7) wheel.

                    Now, lets compare the hit ratios tables of both wheels including the above comment.

                    3 if x hits: the (18,6,3,6,8) provides slightly better hits at the beginning.

                    Especially for 3 if 5 will "surely" hit once in 3 or 4 draws. So, In 8 draws, you'll hit twice or more using both wheels and at the end you'll have a free additional play for the (18,6,3,6,7) wheel = 1 free more chance to win! All other 3 if x have about the same property but less obvious. Still, you'll have a free 1 more try for (18,6,3,6,7) after 8 draws based on the above comment.

                    5 if x : these are out of question as the hit rates are rather low to say (18,6,3,6,8) offer better performance at the long run.

                    4 if x : things are more complicated here but still you can see that the benefit is not really huge at 8 consecutive draws (and therefore you gan 1 free (18,6,3,6,7) wheel to play).

                    Hope this makes things more clear.

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

                      BobP's avatar - bobp avatar.png
                      Dump Water Florida
                      United States
                      Member #380
                      June 5, 2002
                      3104 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: August 18, 2004, 3:31 am - IP Logged

                      I too would go with a 7 line wheel if it wasn't split.  Are you sure there aren't 6 numbers that are independent from the other 12?  I won't ask you to post it because it enhances the value of your software if it's in there, nor will I ask you to email it because I couldn't keep it a secret, it would be too good.  Now I'm off to try and make one for myself.  BobP

                        lottoarchitect's avatar - waveform

                        Greece
                        Member #2815
                        November 18, 2003
                        502 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: August 18, 2004, 6:47 am - IP Logged

                        I had a better look at my wheel; it is a split wheel actually but not so easy to see. Anyway, I work on WG1.4 which tries to figure out the best wheel for any given ticket size. As there are many 18,6,3,6,7 wheels, perhaps there might be a non-split one with very good properties. I'll come back to this when I find one or conclude that there doesn't exist one.

                        The wheel I was talking about is

                        01 - 04 - 07 - 11 - 12 - 13
                        01 - 04 - 08 - 12 - 13 - 15
                        01 - 05 - 12 - 14 - 16 - 17
                        02 - 03 - 06 - 09 - 10 - 18 <- 6 numbers that appear only once (all other appear 3 times each)
                        04 - 05 - 13 - 14 - 16 - 17
                        05 - 07 - 08 - 11 - 14 - 15
                        07 - 08 - 11 - 15 - 16 - 17

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

                          BobP's avatar - bobp avatar.png
                          Dump Water Florida
                          United States
                          Member #380
                          June 5, 2002
                          3104 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: August 18, 2004, 10:19 pm - IP Logged

                          I think the eight line non split could be improved, but suspect for seven lines it has to be split.

                          For example, I've found the only way to make 24,6,3,6 in 20 lines is split, takes 21 to do it non split. 

                          I don't have an objection to the wheel being split, my objection is the lottery player isn't told it's split and what that means to their playing strategy.  BobP