LottoSync needs cloning + development.

Reply #55

MrBobb — Tue, 01 Nov 2005 20:48:22 GMT

I agree! A Lottery Post Premium Membership is a great deal considering all the tools that are available.When my renewal comes up in December, I'll be signing up for another year. See signature line below.Support Lottery Post! Become a Premium Member

Reply #54

LANTERN — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 12:04:41 GMT

Well it looks as if the program can still be finished, but will be a long long time before it is, as progress will be very very slow and this time you can give him your own ideas for the program, maybe he should make it open source and also list the source code or give the source code as a down load, just in case any other programmers want to help with it.Look at the other post next to this one.

Reply #53

LANTERN — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 11:33:43 GMT

I can't repeat this enough, some people think that a programmer that one day compiles his code and distributes a winning system is some sort of genius or something. Well, he's not.In fact, the programmer is just the one that lays the bricks to build the house, using plans.The architect, that's the man!There many architects around here?For pick3 and pick4 games, it would make no difference whatsoever if some of the best predictors got together and put together a winning system (if it exists ofc... [ More ]

Reply #52

pacattack05 — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 04:19:04 GMT

Your last line says it all.

Reply #51

LANTERN — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 02:43:06 GMT

There are general random rules to go by and then there are particular rules to also go by.To anybody who might have an interest, I will post some about some of these things on monday, here at the Lottery Systems Forum.They are mostly common sense rules for the use of filters, what I myself use of would use. Nothing esoteric maybe.

Reply #50

LANTERN — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 02:38:03 GMT

The rule of course is that filters are used according to their own statistics.Filters without their statistics are nothing at all.

Reply #49

LANTERN — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 02:32:54 GMT

I have told many people about filtering, to some I have told more than to others, I have also posteda little about them.But I have never told anybody, about everything that I know about filtering and filters and I have told 2 or 3 people a lot, I figure you have to keep a few things secret, I have told way too much already as it is and most can't understand not even half of it, Why should I tell all ? That might only confuse them even more.But I myself hardly know the proper use of all the filte... [ More ]

Reply #48

LANTERN — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 02:17:17 GMT

How long will a technique keep on working once you posted here for everybody to see it.That is why very little detail of the techniques are given, have to keep the vague, peole have to study and experiment on their own, you just give them the filters and they have to learn on their own how to use them, can't give them every single thing, they have to do some work on their own.I have been known to both win and lose and sometimes have won very often, up to 2 times out of 3 at times, but this does... [ More ]

Reply #47

paurths — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 02:17:16 GMT

The trick is to somehow code those what works at one time might not work at other times, and ... states... in.One example: the shortsum- thing ; if 3 shortsums are out more than 15 draws, play them.Well, without doubles thats 36 numbers. Hopefully they hit and are not going for an all time record...My statistics tell me about shortsums, if one would use them to select the numbers, it is equal to play the ones that are only out maximum 3 draws, instead of using the ones that are on their wey

Reply #46

LANTERN — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 02:07:45 GMT

You know, i've been reading here, from several posters, the existence of a billion filters. Each and every one of them explained into detail.One thing that is never explained, is when and how they are to be used.----Yes, you are right, people use them in their own ways and many or most of them don't tell how.Also what works at one time might not work at other time and what works for one state might not work for another, I myself have both: Won and lost with them, at times won more often and at... [ More ]

Reply #45

paurths — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 01:48:57 GMT

I have most of it coded in visual basic, so it's not lost. This kind of working takes quite some time, however.But i'm pretty tired of it now, spending my evenings and nights coding all kinds of stuff that works partially.(i also took in the lottery bible issue and spend some time developing that, then suddenly the lead pointers were no longer provided so those forms still exists but are pretty much dead , until i perhaps stumble onto something so this lottery bible-data becomes interesti... [ More ]

Reply #44

LANTERN — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 01:45:23 GMT

The computer hardly matters, you can win with an old Commodore 64 with the right program(s) and techniques.It is the techniques and or the programming that matters, not the speed of the computer, unless you are using LottoSync, the the speed does matter.You can win with only pen and paper and no computer, I have done before with the sums chart from Lotto Logix that is at BobP's site, print it many times and use filters and a felt tip pen, you can win boxed if you know how, I have done before.The... [ More ]

Reply #43

LANTERN — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 01:36:21 GMT

Maybe in the future I might find a way or ways to do better.The best thing would be to win straight even if not very often at all.I straight win equals many boxed wins.I will start to predict again sometime, but will start from almost the bottom after being away from the lottery for so long, I have not tried to get winning numbers in months, I think.It will take a while to remember how I used to do it and then even longer to maybe get better if I can at all.I don't buy the combos anyway, so it i... [ More ]

Reply #42

pacattack05 — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 01:30:55 GMT

Yes....I'm still trying to find the code or codes. I think I will never find it because it is way too complex.Even if I had the new IBM computer that cost $110 million, that can do a trillion calculations a second, it wouldn't matter because the program is as good as the programmer, or the info that's inputed into the program.The IBM computer described above, was designed to analyze nuclear explosions.

Reply #41

LANTERN — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 01:22:37 GMT

Well, to me the key is still the use of filters in the way in which I use them, I just have to get better at my own techniques.Over all I have done better with Texas, because I was more familiar with the way the draws come out here, at times I have done a little better than at other times, sometimes I could win with 20 to 45 combos boxed-Any order 50 to 65 % of the time more or less at other times I might only win about 1 out of every 4 times or even only 1 out of every 5 times.

Reply #40

pacattack05 — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 01:07:54 GMT

It's funny you mention the streak, and then a slow period. Way back, I was working on a Grouping of filters, so to speak.When one filter ran it's course, then by a learned technique, someone could figure what filter to use next, based on the previous filter, or filters.I did this one time, with precision, narrowing it down to just 15 numbers. The winner that night was in one of those 15. The problem was that I only remember parts of that proccess. I did it off the top of my head....it seemed kin... [ More ]

Reply #39

Todd — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 19:20:14 GMT

Hopefully people will start/continue supporting Lottery Post, where they can express all these different views. Purchasing Premium memberships are great ways to do that. Many thanks to all whose name appears with yellow highlighting.

Reply #38

RJOh — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 19:11:50 GMT

Lottery programmers do listen to their customers, but all their customers want the same thing - a lottery program that will win lots of money with very little investment. If they ever write such a program, they won't need any customers. Most programmers know if their customers could find a better program for the same price, they wouldn't be buying theirs.

Reply #37

LANTERN — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 07:40:27 GMT

Thomsol had made a program called SimuLotto which could had been good or very good,but there where some very serious problems with it and Thomsol would not listen to his customers, so his program had to die, same as LottoSync, since Guru does not listen to his customers his program is in limbo and will stay there for an indefinite ammouint of time, evolve, shape up or die as Simulotto did, for lack of support, Thomsol was set on his ways and would not change his program. That is OK if you make a... [ More ]

Reply #36

LANTERN — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 07:02:34 GMT

I no longer care for any kind of prediction programs, only for those that give statistics and tools that you can use to get your owns numbers with. I never found any programs that could give winning numbers often enough to be of use.Also I don't think that I am ever going to get any more LottoSync updates, it looks as if 1.7 will be the last.It also does not look as if anybody will ever try to make any lottery programs similar or the same in function as LottoSync, such a program must be beyond t... [ More ]

Reply #35

cahaba — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 03:41:24 GMT

Has anyone heard from Ion Saliu lately? Also, has anyone tested Ion and Guru's software head-to-head (asuming you can afford to). My playing partner and I are knee deep in analyzing some programs, as well as developing our own. Life is like a box of chocolates...you can speculate on what you're going to get through trial and error

Reply #34

paurths — Tue, 25 Oct 2005 20:02:16 GMT

I've been developing several modules (for pick3 pick4).Each module, which uses different calculationmatrixes, works for an amount of time and sometimes produces astonishing results.Then it fades away. Sometimes for several months, sometimes even for a period of years.The key, to be able to know when one of them will work again and produce straights again on a very regular base, is to find why it does not work at other times.Sometimes this just drives me nuts, not being able to find out why the... [ More ]

Reply #33

hypersoniq — Sun, 23 Oct 2005 04:56:23 GMT

Personally, I don't think Guru's wheel needs anymore re-inventing... but I have made that journey with some programming experiments... If you are intrigued by the concept then by all means have at it. even when a system turns up a loser, you can have the satisfaction of saying I tried . The KEY is in backtesting, running any system against already known results to pick the next known draw... that way you don't lose any money.

Reply #32

BobP — Sun, 23 Oct 2005 04:44:36 GMT

It's a random walk, a drunken stagger. You are trying to predict the next six steps based on the last X number of steps taken. One shouldn't expect to be right all the time like reproducing an experiment in the lab. This is a simple back alley wager where you only need to be correct once. When you don't care about always being correct it ought to be possible to come up with a system that is occasionally correct.BobP

Reply #31

paurths — Sat, 22 Oct 2005 18:50:29 GMT

True, universal laws have to follow predetermined scripts.But if God , or whoever one takes as creator , is a lord of order, that remains to be seen ...Even if random is as ordered as anything can be, or is not ordered, there is no way one can ever notice the order (if there) of randomness.We all talk about patterns, you can read the word pattern all over this forum. Even i have used it many times.Somehow, i can't see any posts where one talks about patterns also explains into detail what e... [ More ]

Reply #30

LANTERN — Sat, 22 Oct 2005 17:52:37 GMT

No problema ! It is a problem of apparent meaning of the word Random and not of it's function.Appears to be a contradiction of terms, but it's not.Random is as ordered as anything can be, it does not have a choice, universal laws have no volition of their own, they have to follow predetermined scripts, God is a lord of order.Because of the very extreme complexity of it's workings, to humans they might apear to be Random (there is the word again), the problem is with the meaning given by peop... [ More ]

Reply #29

lottoshlep — Sat, 22 Oct 2005 17:01:21 GMT

Maybe you just coined a new phrase here, or maybe it's already been said bfr though I've not heard it, but this term Disjointed Randomness is truly the oxymoron of the day, right up there with Deafening Silence from our friend Guru!!Either that or there is some order in randomness after all!! Sorry, Lantern ... I understood very well what you meant but simply could not resist pointing out your word play and must thank you for providing a morning chuckle for me!! ... Cheers

Reply #28

LANTERN — Sat, 22 Oct 2005 15:59:10 GMT

To a very great extent, but not completely, the random string is cut off from one draw to the next, so I am very surprised that LottoSync can predict right 2 to 3 balls on 10 out of 6.His reasoning would be more correct or right on a continuos or uninterupted random probability string.For example: They draw out 6 balls out of 42 and if his software would use those 6 balls for prediction and predicts 10 balls, if they had drawed out 16 balls instead of 6 the last 10 balls might had been the same

Reply #27

hypersoniq — Sat, 22 Oct 2005 04:43:12 GMT

wild trip down memory lane...https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/73174.htmI recall developing a fun little app called the Coincidizer it didn't work either...

Reply #26

vick — Tue, 04 Oct 2005 16:55:39 GMT

Ya Guru how's 1.8 or 1.9 synch going? Mabye we get a christmas present

Reply #25

paul762 — Tue, 04 Oct 2005 14:23:34 GMT

heres an idea , seeing as you have so much to tell us, but wont??? why not email a newsletter say once a month to all buyers of lottosync to keep us up to date of new developments and what we might expect from the new version. surely this isnt too much to ask.just an idea.

Reply #24

lottoshlep — Tue, 13 Sep 2005 03:30:27 GMT

Tell you what Xavier, if you can stop speculating about and bashing LottoSynch, and members who have it, I may consider upgrading your status from narrow-minded immature irritant to just plain inquisitive.Although judging from the last statement in your last post I doubt that you can change your attitude. Posting in such fashion is not likely to win you any points here with many members, especially not with charlatan Guru. Writing with such rancour will earn you a label of a flaming ignoramus... [ More ]

Reply #23

psykomo — Tue, 13 Sep 2005 02:39:49 GMT

BE>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>positivEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEETHANKsssssssssssssssssssssssBetter THERE!!!!$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$KEPITUPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!PSYKOMO

Reply #22

xavier102772 — Tue, 13 Sep 2005 00:12:30 GMT

Guys, I'd love to be able to test it but I'm definately not gonna buy it if there is no guarantee. This is the reason I asked if one of you who do have it can test it and post your results. Seems reasonable enough doesn't it. I mostly want to know if it does any better than the theory I have proposed, which I think it does not. Yet none of you will provide any significant testing data. Why can't you(lottoshlp) just admit you were suckered and be pissed of at Guru for taking your money and l... [ More ]

Reply #21

RJOh — Mon, 12 Sep 2005 15:26:02 GMT

I think Xavier is thinking he should be able to rate systems and software by the amount of support they get from LP members and he is wrong. Lottosync has its supporters as do Vtrac, Steve Players systems, Gail Howard software and others and yet people continue to lose money using them. Making a good decision in life is sometimes as simple as watching what others are doing and following but lotteries don't work that way.

Reply #20

lottoshlep — Mon, 12 Sep 2005 00:19:37 GMT

It's understandable that some ppl get their hackles up when publicly corrected but it's immature at best to bash a system without ever seeing it, nevermind actually testing it.I still say that Xavier doesn't know what he's talking about and has missed the point completely about me or others here 'defending' LottoSynch.

Reply #19

xavier102772 — Sun, 11 Sep 2005 03:33:41 GMT

lotoshlep must have stock in lottosync or something, he defends it like it is the best thing since sliced bread.As well, try reading the thread link I posted. I give my theories on how I think it is working. Regardless of how it actually works, it does no better and likely worse than how I theorised. I tried to get people to post their results from Lottosync but got almost no takers so I could compare how well it would do versus my theory. Also, take note all, that there is no money back gu... [ More ]

Reply #18

paurths — Sat, 03 Sep 2005 00:36:34 GMT

Pretty strange that you wrote this: Take all the numbers from the past 3 draws and pick 10 numbers at random. Though I am very confident about how his software is predicting and I use that word very lightly, picking numbers based on that method is quite sound and does help. In that thread it was clearly stated that it does not do that, since it comes up with other numbers.I'm betting (since this is a keyword in that thread) that it uses probability and path-integrals. Meaning it is building... [ More ]

Reply #17

lottoshlep — Sat, 03 Sep 2005 00:34:43 GMT

Xavier sounds like a broken record ... and a bad one at that too.He has proven nothing ... ppl like him only make asses of themselves assuming they know how a software works without ever seeing it.How narrow-minded is that?? His above post is a monumental waste of bandwidth IMO.

Reply #16

RJOh — Fri, 02 Sep 2005 22:10:06 GMT

xavier,I haven't used or bought the software but if as you say, it's not any great feat of coding or a great prediction engine in any sense of the word, why have there been so many reports of it taking a day or longer to come up with its picks? Unless it goes into some kind of time delay loop, it must be crunching numbers or doing something because just using the last three drawings would limit its pool to 15-18 numbers and it's unlikely its picks from those numbers for a 6/49 game is going to... [ More ]

Reply #15

xavier102772 — Fri, 02 Sep 2005 20:52:49 GMT

Why should anyone treat him or his system/software better? He's been leading everyone on about how good his new versions predicting is for over a year. Says he wants to make it better/faster, etc. The fact is that he has nothing and it doesn't work like he's been leading everyone on about. If you check out the topic below, I believe I've already shown everyone what he is doing with his software. It's not any great feat of coding or a great prediction engine in any sense of the word. To sum... [ More ]

Reply #14

LANTERN — Fri, 02 Sep 2005 02:33:57 GMT

Maybe if people would treat his program and him better he would be more willing to release more versions more often and again maybe not, I don't know.Good luck to all.

Reply #13

paul762 — Thu, 01 Sep 2005 18:17:05 GMT

santa guru left out the deliveries last year, a christmas release would be most welcome this year.

Reply #12

LANTERN — Tue, 30 Aug 2005 02:40:19 GMT

RazielAt the same time that Guru is making the program slower by improving the prediction accuracy, he is also improving the speed making it faster so in the end it might stay about the same speed as it is now more or less.But because this way of predicting is very slow so far unless a big speed break-thru comes out it might still be best to have a fast PC.Good luck.

Reply #11

Raziel — Tue, 30 Aug 2005 02:10:21 GMT

Same here Lantern.....I've been using LS 1.6 to play Keno......of course it is not designed for it but has done okay. I have won Keno more with LS 1.6 in my modified way of doing it then I ever did with other software designed for Keno. LS 1.8 as we know will be designed for Keno andmany other lotto games. I,m sure the hit rate will be better. Since guru has spent a lot of time on this product and keeps updating it with new concepts and ideas. I hope it will be better then 1.6 and the buggy 1... [ More ]

Reply #10

LANTERN — Tue, 30 Aug 2005 00:24:33 GMT

I hope that a new version is ready for download by this next Christmas. Guru Santa

Reply #9

paul762 — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 12:46:48 GMT

Nice to see you around here again Marco.Good Luck with the new version.Dont be a stranger

Reply #8

mabman — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 07:38:08 GMT

Sorry, one of my pet peeves: using black box reverse engineering methods (eg, input value X yields result Y, no disassembly/decompilation) is perfectly legal in most places - the volume of legal work-alike software in existance attests to that.The ethics of doing so are another issue.

Reply #7

vick — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 03:29:48 GMT

nice to hear from you Marco, though it is a bit disturbing when you don't answer emails, it's as if you don't like me or you didn't want to discuss the program at all. Either way it's good to know your still working on it, and i may be safe to say even a buggy released version in our hands and we will quickly help you work out the bugs asap !!!! 2 heads or better than 1 thanks vick

Reply #6

Raziel — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 01:40:06 GMT

Thanks Marco for giving us an update and that LS 1.8 will eventually be coming our way.Raziel

Reply #5

popeye — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 00:08:31 GMT

Now this is good news.Great to hear from you Marco

Reply #4

LANTERN — Tue, 23 Aug 2005 21:33:22 GMT

I was not by any-means talking about reverse engineering.I was talking about new software (not called LottoSync ) that would produce like results, the results would be cloned, but not the internal program's code itself.As I understand this, even if anybody wanted to reverse engineer LottoSync, they could not do so, Marco made really sure of that, so that would never be an option to any-body and it is also illegal, I was never talking about that, I was talking about a program that would produc... [ More ]

Reply #3

Todd — Tue, 23 Aug 2005 21:00:07 GMT

I agree with Marco.It is his program, to do with as he chooses.If someone is frustrated by his pace or his design decisions, they can make suggestions, but in the end it is up to the software author to choose what they want to do. The marketplace will decide if the author did the right thing.If someone wants something more, they are free to develop whatever they want.But in that case, they should not call their software Lotto Sync , because that would be an attempt to steal someone else's idea... [ More ]

Reply #2

Guru — Tue, 23 Aug 2005 19:30:23 GMT

ps: LanternReverse engineering software is illegal

Reply #1

Guru — Tue, 23 Aug 2005 19:27:19 GMT

Lottosync is not dead !!I am still working on the new version. I have so much new information I would like to share with you on the forum, but I decided not to do so yet.I want to keep working on the system quietly at my own pace. I sometimes need to leave it for a while to clear my mind.The big deal is not writing the software, the big deal is continuously finding out how it can be made better (and faster). This requires good ideas (wich need constant evaluation on their validity). I'm not jus... [ More ]

LottoSync needs cloning + development.

LANTERN — Tue, 23 Aug 2005 18:46:14 GMT

It appears as if LottoSync is a dead end and a dead system !I don't know why Marco-Guru still has his web page up and appears to keep on selling it or trying to, version 1.7 and all others before it are not very good, at least not for most lotteries.It is my feeling that the LottoSync system has some merit, but that as it is all by itself is not very good at all, if it was developed farther and also combined with other good methods or systems, that it might be able to do very much better.Since M... [ More ]