What constitutes a good reduction filter?

Reply #22

SergeM — Sun, 15 Jul 2012 17:10:06 GMT

My preference for playing goes to a different kind of wheel.

I filtered a 12 number wheel in pick 6.

N1 N2 N3 N4 N5 N6

1 2 3 7 8 9

1 2 4 7 8 10

1 2 5 7 8 11

1 2 6 7 8 12

1 3 4 7 9 10

1 3 5 7 9 11

1 3 6 7 9 12

1 4 5 7 10 11

1 4 6 7 10 12

1 5 6 7 11 12

2 3 4 8 9 10

2 3 5 8 9 11

2 3 6 8 9 12

2 4 5 8 10 11

2 4 6 8 10 12

2 5 6 8 11 12

3 4 5 9 10 11

3 4 6 9 10 12

3 5 6 9 11 12

4 5 6 10 11 12

Reply #21

RL-RANDOMLOGIC — Sun, 15 Jul 2012 15:00:42 GMT

JKING

I have tried many different approaches to overcome uncertainty and have adjusted my thought process

to exclude it. How can we be certain about anything in a random process. I got to a point where I needed

to be correct which placed so much stress on me that I often found myself doing anything to avoid making a

setup where I might make a mistake.

Since anything can show in the next draw I try to look at the data like selecting a peice of fruit. Would I like

an apple or a

Reply #20

dr san — Sun, 15 Jul 2012 12:40:13 GMT

Hello, jking is an example of a lottery 50/5 ok = is an example to demonstrate the tilidade crossing the filter sum of numbers, with the endings.

First, you must choose at least 5 to 6 terminations, mark them in the table, all the numbers chosen endings.

Second, choose at least 5 to 6 sums, and just check the numbers that match the tremina es, e.g. choose termination 1 (1, 11, 21, 31, 41), then chose 2 and 5 checksums, so matching numbers are 11 and 41, right.

Finally just select and t... [ More ]

Reply #19

JKING — Sun, 15 Jul 2012 10:37:48 GMT

Hi,

Your replies are appreciated and respected as always.

You might want consider filter/reduction methods from this point of view...

Even time that you use a filter/reduction method you are saying that you are willing to lose a certain amount of games for the reduction achieved. Unless, of course, you take the 100% approach.

Some filter/reduction methods give you very little reduction for the risk taken. So, in essence, there is a risk management issue to be delt with.

Then

Reply #18

RL-RANDOMLOGIC — Sun, 15 Jul 2012 08:03:30 GMT

JKING

After reading your last post I think I know what you are attempting. I followed a similar approach

but hit a wall where I could make no futher progress. This would be the ultimate lottery program

if it's possible. I just don't have the enegry or abilities to see it to the end, I wish you success.

RL

.

Reply #17

RL-RANDOMLOGIC — Sun, 15 Jul 2012 07:43:06 GMT

JKING

What you seem to be asking has no answer, a filter is a filter. Reduction filters all do one thing, they reduce.

The only good filter is a filter who's value can be predicted and at the end of the day every filter does the exact

same thing. It does not really matter how or what a filter does it only matters that it is set correctly. Math

cannot predict the lottery but we can gain some good insight as to what is expected. If given a choice of using

math or instinct I would ch... [ More ]

Reply #16

JKING — Sun, 15 Jul 2012 06:55:44 GMT

Hi,

Lakerben

I've been around the lottery scene for a long time. My question is what do you base your assumptions on : by experience?? And what system do you use ? I've been testing and analyzing systems for over 25 years, and I have learned many different methods from Wheels,matrix of all sizes, grids you name it.

I base my own designed system on historical data. The core of it is the amount of occurrences that happens for each lottery number over different windows in time. The... [ More ]

Reply #15

lottoarchitect — Sun, 15 Jul 2012 04:40:31 GMT

And what is the performance of the individual reduction elements in your normal filtering application? To get to a 12 number scheme you must have reduction method that has an associated error rate. If you look at the Maddog challenges in the jackpot section, the majority of people are having a very rough time with the 12 number scenario. In which case, it does matter what wheeling method you use if you don t have any reliability in the 12 numbers you ve chosen.

JKING, back in 2003 I d... [ More ]

Reply #14

lottoarchitect — Sat, 14 Jul 2012 21:06:27 GMT

I don't know if I have the right to ask him to join here to discuss this further, I don't want to disturb my users that way. Also I'm not sure if he can add something more to this discussion too. The reason is basically, he uses my programs and just plays what they suggest, so he may just discuss what settings he used in my programs. He was happy enough with the results so he posted his settings and what he won for other users to try/discuss. The first link in my blog is this case, so I may say... [ More ]

Reply #13

lakerben — Sat, 14 Jul 2012 18:45:34 GMT

I've been around the lottery scene for a long time. My question is what do you base your assumptions on : by experience?? And what system do you use ? I've been testing and analyzing systems for over 25 years, and I have learned many different methods from Wheels,matrix of all sizes, grids you name it.

Reply #12

RJOh — Sat, 14 Jul 2012 18:12:25 GMT

I have a user who has matched 4 times in a row a 4-win in his 6/49 game by picking 12 numbers and wheel them. He is about 600% in profit (including the cost to play) by doing that over this month,

You should suggest he join this conversation, he sounds like a player who could add to the conversation just from his experieces.

Reply #11

JKING — Sat, 14 Jul 2012 17:32:57 GMT

Hi,

Thanks everybody for you replies.

Rjoh

If you are playing just a few combinations, why generate all the possible combinations and then filter them? Wouldn't it be faster to only generate combinations using only the numbers that your filters wouldn't eliminate within parameters that your filters would accept?

The reason I run all possible combinations is to test the performance of an individual filter. Total combinations-filtered combinations=the reduction. Historical tracking t... [ More ]

Reply #10

BobP — Sat, 14 Jul 2012 10:24:10 GMT

Ask yourself how often you'd like a chance at winning the jackpot.

If your software allows wheels to be imported, use your game's data base as the combinations in a wheel.

Run filters against the wheel made of game draws to find an acceptable percentage of combinations passing your filters.

Apply those filter settings against all combinations, play what you can afford like every 10th ticket or every 100th ticket.

BobP

Reply #9

lottoarchitect — Sat, 14 Jul 2012 09:27:10 GMT

There are people winning with this method, if you consider the application of an abbreviated wheel as a filtering process over the full covering (which it is actually). It doesn't have to be e.g. a sums filter really, the strict definition of what is a filter. I have a user who has matched 4 times in a row a 4-win in his 6/49 game by picking 12 numbers and wheel them. He is about 600% in profit (including the cost to play) by doing that over this month, he had some good hits in the past too with... [ More ]

Reply #8

onlymoney — Sat, 14 Jul 2012 05:19:57 GMT

a wheel is good if you have the right numbers. lol

Reply #7

aquariuslottery — Sat, 14 Jul 2012 04:47:10 GMT

It's a funny thing, that when you run to many filters (or combined higher percentage error) the winning combination falls on some combination that you have filtered out.

Hi,

For that very reason I never use any elimination filters because you can never be sure if you are not throwing away the winner. Instead I use wheels which GUARANTEE a winning combination if you match certain numbers. This applies to any numeric lottery. I tried wheels in Lotto 649 and now Pick 3. I rely on wheels so he... [ More ]

Reply #6

onlymoney — Sat, 14 Jul 2012 04:23:51 GMT

after years of using filters i came to the conclusion that the best filter is finding matches. this process relieves the user of the stress of reducing individual numbers. These practices usually also eliminate the winning numbers in the process.

example below.

https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/248489/2615272

Reply #5

RL-RANDOMLOGIC — Sat, 14 Jul 2012 04:09:06 GMT

JKING

I may be letting the cat out of the bag but here is what I think. First start with a filter that puts a bias

in the sets returned, this bias will show up as a reduction in the pool of numbers possible. Often in my

DM setups I am left with 20 to 25 numbers from the original 39. This next part is counter intutive and a

bit hard to understand but if you check every set returned against all the other sets and record all the

match 0,1,2,3,4,5 of 5 you will be looking at the answ... [ More ]

Reply #4

RJOh — Sat, 14 Jul 2012 00:13:45 GMT

Until someone is actually winning some money with such an application it's just another interesting and entertaining conversation of which there are many here at LP.

Reply #3

lottoarchitect — Sat, 14 Jul 2012 00:02:21 GMT

It doesn't have to be all the possible combinations, that's the extreme scenario. A normal filtering application would be to filter down from a full covering of eg 12 numbers. Any good filter or combination of filters would eliminate tickets from this set to bring it down to a reasonable cost.

Reply #2

RJOh — Fri, 13 Jul 2012 23:53:50 GMT

If you are playing just a few combinations, why generate all the possible combinations and then filter them? Wouldn't it be faster to only generate combinations using only the numbers that your filters wouldn't eliminate within parameters that your filters would accept

Reply #1

dr san — Fri, 13 Jul 2012 23:45:04 GMT

Hello, jking, if you split a lottery in 4 parts group will have a zero or a number, and another group, two or more numbers, if you play one of two where you miss, and where to play two in the group has zero or one, also loses, then it is certain to create a standardized formula of rotation because it is 100%, you can give

What constitutes a good reduction filter?

JKING — Fri, 13 Jul 2012 21:00:29 GMT

Hi,

What makes the best reductions filters?

I would suggest that it is a filter that eliminates the most combinations with the least amount of error.

For those of you who program, it is a simple matter of applying a filter to all the possible combinations and seeing how much of a redution has been achieved.

Then weigh the amount/percertage of games you would have eleiminated/lost the winning combination.

It's a funny thing, that when you run to many filters (or combined highe... [ More ]