on ways of improving 1.lottosync idea!!

Reply #24

LANTERN — Wed, 14 Dec 2005 14:15:39 GMT

I think that some of us overestimated Guru and gave him too much credibility, his program was never not even close to being as good as he said that it was and might never be no matter what, we might never get an update, because no update will be good enough no matter how long we wait for it. Guru also overestimated himself and his program, a program such as that might never be good enough, it would have to be changed a lot, the program's basic prediction idea as it is or was might not be good en... [ More ]

Reply #23

paul762 — Sun, 11 Dec 2005 15:09:55 GMT

No more tests, its upto you to deliver the big one now Marco.

Reply #22

paul762 — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 11:07:34 GMT

1st draw on 23/11/05 used a 150 sample with 1.6 = 1 + bonus numbers hit from 10numbers used were :- 1-5-7-13-23-26-29-30-33-342nd draw on 26/11/05 used a 150 sample with 1.6 = 1 number hit from 10numbers used were :- 18-20-24-27-38-40-41-44-45-493rd draw on 30/11/05 used a 150 sdample with 1.6 = 1 number hit from 10numbers used were :- 2-5-20-21-22-24-38-41-42-484th draw on 3/12/05 used a 150 sample with 1.6 = 1 number + bonus numbers hit from 10number used were :- 1-2-15-16-18-19-22-24-30-33

Reply #21

hypersoniq — Sat, 03 Dec 2005 20:29:56 GMT

forget the matrix of 5/55 or it's high odds... show me something that can beat the 1:42 odds of the red ball... I'm still working on that and still have gotten nowhere...

Reply #20

paurths — Sat, 03 Dec 2005 20:27:22 GMT

Only 1

Reply #19

paul762 — Sat, 03 Dec 2005 20:23:23 GMT

4th draw on 3/12/05 used a 2000 sample with 1.6 = 1 number hit from 10numbers used were :- 2-3-18-22-32-40-42-43-44-48

Reply #18

paul762 — Fri, 02 Dec 2005 20:10:42 GMT

3rd draw on 30/11/05 used a 2000 sample with 1.6 = 0 numbers hit rom 10numbers used were :- 8-10-16-17-21-23-31-33-35-44

Reply #17

paul762 — Sun, 27 Nov 2005 17:21:37 GMT

2nd draw on 26/11/05 used a 2000 sample with 1.6 = 2 numbers hit from 10numbers used were :- 6-16-17-19-21-27-35-41-44-48

Reply #16

paul762 — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 11:55:53 GMT

1st draw on 23/11/05 used a 2000 sample with 1.6 = 0 numbers hit from 10numbers used were :- 1-2-3-5-8-17-21-30-40-43

Reply #15

LANTERN — Tue, 22 Nov 2005 01:13:30 GMT

Let us say that you take 10 past jackpot game draws.It is hard to see patterns on the whole complete numbers.But if you do the same with only the decades and then with only the right digits, then it is much easier to see the patterns that the individual separate digits make.As you can see, there is much more to prediction than just syncronizing a random seed and or stream to past lottery draws.I just noticed that the Lottery Post's editor is quite faster than it was not long ago, there used to b... [ More ]

Reply #14

LANTERN — Tue, 22 Nov 2005 00:49:46 GMT

If the numbers themselves can't be predicted, then we need to know which decades will come out by position and which digits from 0 to 9 will come with them on their right side.But that is not easy to predict either.I don't see why bother so much with jackpot games, when the pick 3 is so much easier to win. $ 80 for 3 digits is better than $ 10 or less for 3 digits on jackpot games.I say, simplify lottery games, break them up into parts, for easier handling and predicting, even pick 3, people bre... [ More ]

Reply #13

LANTERN — Mon, 21 Nov 2005 22:55:26 GMT

MarcoDidn't or doesn't yet understand, that his random discoveries while very good are only a part of the puzzle to get the winning number with and not the whole answer to it, his system as it is now or as it was on 1.5 to 1.7 can only be partially effective. Getting 2 numbers out of 10 is not such a great thing, 3 numbers out of ten is not too bad, but still not good enough as 3 numbers don't pay much or anything at all, 3 numbers + powerball or 4 main numbers, that would really be something.Wh... [ More ]

Reply #12

paul762 — Mon, 21 Nov 2005 21:02:35 GMT

Vick, I noticed that the smaller samples were outperforming the larger samples, which I found strange??? I dont know how long its been since 1.7 but I purchased 1.6 in early feb 2004 , have you done any testing with the higher samples, I tested 800 for a while but nothing surfaced, certainly nothing life changing anyway. I think I am going to give it one last try and play 2000 sample for about 10 or 20 draws, then I will be giving up on it , if results dont surpass lower samples.I just hope whe... [ More ]

Reply #11

vick — Mon, 21 Nov 2005 20:08:00 GMT

paul sometimes i noticed in 1.6 so the smaller values would actually take longre than the bigger values. almost as if the program gets stuck in a loop ?i sure wish we get that 1.8 christmas present ) how long has it been now since we got 1.7? i can't remember

Reply #10

paul762 — Mon, 21 Nov 2005 13:13:53 GMT

Is the 2000 sample in 1.6 supposed to be better than 150 300 450 600 750 etc. or was there supposed to be a balance , it seems in 1.7 that the higher the sample the better, but I didnt know if this was the case for 1.6 or not.

Reply #9

luckyhorse — Sun, 20 Nov 2005 02:03:59 GMT

poeye did you actually hit a 5 number prize for that draw and how many times have you done this previously i have only done it once using lottosync but i'am still tring for a second

Reply #8

popeye — Thu, 17 Nov 2005 16:31:58 GMT

VickYes, I always use 30 line play that comes with it.Makes my day to see you are alive and well Marco

Reply #7

vick — Thu, 17 Nov 2005 05:19:59 GMT

Nice to know your still Alive and kicking Marco and that your working on that 1.8. Patience indeed but how much more patience my friend do you approximate? Christmas time present like Paul says?? Vick

Reply #6

Guru — Wed, 16 Nov 2005 22:44:12 GMT

Hello hello,Marco is still here, and he's still working on 1.8 in silencePatience, it will come as I promised...

Reply #5

vick — Wed, 16 Nov 2005 18:40:25 GMT

5 / 10 is OUTSTANDING, did you play them in a wheel?congrats---------------------mabye if emailed Marco - all us owners- asking him what's up with the new 1.8

Reply #4

popeye — Wed, 16 Nov 2005 16:45:39 GMT

I did tests using draw order and tests using only all Wed. or Sat. draws. No effect that I could see in our CDN 649.From what I know on how it works, this should not be a factor.On the Big Jackpot draw that we just had, I got 5 numbers using V1.6beta. Sample size 800. So, it does work.I don't know WTH happened to Marco. He doesn't even respond to those who bought the program. Maybe he's not even there anymore!!I do hope he puts out Ver 1.8 and then come whatever, we can let him rest... [ More ]

Reply #3

psykomo — Wed, 16 Nov 2005 04:37:15 GMT

luckyhorse:Keep brainstorming............tryinnnnnnnnnnn to fiXXXXXXXX....lottosunkkk???but, will....someone??????? anyone tell us what is so GREAT ??????????????about.......this software package and WHY you can'T use the BONE's left......in the thing to just BE on your money?????????????????????????????????Does it win, loss or draw or break-even!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!SOMEONE, anyone,........................TELL US HOW GREAT and WHY??????????it is worthy of spending your... [ More ]

Reply #2

RJOh — Wed, 16 Nov 2005 04:05:52 GMT

If you're just running a test, you can take as much time as you need so the speed of your computer shouldn't prevent you running the test yourself.

Reply #1

reddog — Wed, 16 Nov 2005 03:28:46 GMT

Been there, done that two years ago when it first came out. Didn't help.

on ways of improving 1.lottosync idea!!

luckyhorse — Wed, 16 Nov 2005 03:15:35 GMT

i was brainstorming trying to think of ways to improve 1.6 performance and had this idea what if we inputted the numbers as they are drawn out of the machine meaning take the last 3 draws and input the numbers as they were drawn this number info can be found at www.lotterybuddy.com someone could you please test this theory and follow up on this forum as my computer does not have enough speed to accomplish this