something wrong with lottosync v1.6 ?

Reply #61

Colin F — Sun, 02 May 2004 03:08:19 GMT

Correction:Re

Reply #60

Colin F — Sun, 02 May 2004 00:50:09 GMT

BobPWith respect I disagree.For a pick 6 from 49 Lottery my system tracks 13,983,816 specifications and six sub specifications and when they are filled with numbers.For a particular Lotto History the results after a 1000 Draw run can be agregated. For the particular scenario being mooted here I can state uneqivocally that the results would produce for the lower prizes a return less than that obtained by random numbers.On the other hand if the 164 Combinations you gave me are played for the Wisc... [ More ]

Reply #59

paul762 — Sat, 01 May 2004 20:51:30 GMT

2 numbers again tonigh

Reply #58

spock — Sat, 01 May 2004 18:23:42 GMT

Lets wait till 1.7. is fixed if the results are the same..i agree it will be major disappointment.

Reply #57

hypersoniq — Sat, 01 May 2004 14:04:26 GMT

I think I will try 10 as a starting point for last draws to consider and work down from there... 10 has a MODE value in PB, 5 4 or 3 does not... So the formula operates on the Mode((ModeFull * 7) + (ModeLast10 * 11)) / 18 = my positional pick 7 and 11 are arbitrary for now, need to start somewhere... 2 to 1 just does the average, this gives ModeLast10 a 1.57 to 1 weight advantage.Also trying the Average (Mean)((MeanFull * 7) + (MeanLast10 * 11)) /18 = pickit may work (just like a QP may work, o... [ More ]

Reply #56

BobP — Sat, 01 May 2004 05:25:24 GMT

I think you're missing the bigger picture. So far we know almost nothing works when it comes to predicting lottery. In big games patterns vanish almost before they begin.Working with the three most recent past draws is the minimum possible to establish a pattern with the hope of a forth draw being the next step rather then a leap in another direction. Yet even with a three draw pattern we can look at what's going on and tell if we've got three steps worth trying to extrapolate a forth from or... [ More ]

Reply #55

emilyg — Sat, 01 May 2004 02:40:20 GMT

wonder why guru isnot responding

Reply #54

Colin F — Sat, 01 May 2004 01:32:58 GMT

I don't have a problem with creative effort - I encourage it. I do have a problem when qualifications are bandied around to support Systems. As far as I am concerned you can be studying to be a sex worker or garbage collector (male, female or non-gender, of course) and have as much credibility. (One of the things I like about the Lottery Post is that letters after your name are not paraded.)We all make mistakes and sometimes just have to ditch what we've done because of some fatal error even tho... [ More ]

Reply #53

hypersoniq — Fri, 30 Apr 2004 03:17:45 GMT

you must realize that you are picking 10 numbers for a 6 number lotto, results are bound to look better on paper for that...I just don't see 3 draws as a clear enough picture... Just using the simple FORECAST function in Excel... Run it on 3 draws... you can end up with negative numbers and zeros... with 5 draws you tend to end up in the right ranges, even if not at the right exact numbers... with the entire draw history, you tend to match the average (mean) of the same history...If a magic bul... [ More ]

Reply #52

paul762 — Thu, 29 Apr 2004 08:22:28 GMT

1 number + bonus last night for yet another loss, total loss is growing with each draw. lottosync v1.6 600 sample constant

Reply #51

RJOh — Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:45:43 GMT

I will believe it when I see it

Reply #50

DreamLotto — Tue, 27 Apr 2004 04:50:43 GMT

Dear Lotto Friends,I vaguely remember when GURU said in his EARLIEST of posts (roughly about the time of my joining this lovely forum in October 2003), when he had to battle some hostile and sceptical posters (yes, myself included), that LottoSync is based on a doctoral thesis submitted in some Belgian University. Let us not totally disregard a creative attempt at predicting numbers based on just THREE of past draws! We all know, Mike's wonderful programs too have similar features for ALL types... [ More ]

Reply #49

RJOh — Mon, 26 Apr 2004 20:12:39 GMT

Quote: Originally posted by BobP on April 26, 2004RHOh: Just for fun do you think it would help or hurt to have let's say six hats each containing the numbers normally drawn within the six positional ranges. Draw two numbers from each hat discarding any repeats, then wheel (normally or positionally). Better strategy then all in one hat or worse? BobPI agree Bob,I think the six hat solution is a better one and you have a good strategy for picking the numbers. Just add a wheel or two and you wi... [ More ]

Reply #48

paul762 — Mon, 26 Apr 2004 09:34:46 GMT

Quote: Originally posted by RJOh on April 25, 2004Paul, After reading the posts of other LottoSync users, I think the program is doing what it was designed to do - take over 12 hours to generate 10 numbers. It's just that you think that 10 random numbers generated in 12 or more hours should be better than 10 numbers pulled out a hat.RJOh rjoh, apparently lottosync is NOT a random number generator, but it seems i am not having the results others seem to be having, an earlier post had some trial... [ More ]

Reply #47

hypersoniq — Mon, 26 Apr 2004 08:50:07 GMT

Quote: Originally posted by vick on April 16, 2004i used neuarl netwoks years back on the lottos = not much sucess, byt mabye today's faster computers can work things differently with it?After reading a great book on pattern matching NNs and months of ehxaustive web research and toying with excel and stand-alone demos I have come to the conclusion that a NN as designeed today cannot help with the lottery... it is an attempt to model the human brain, and we already have better abstract pattern re... [ More ]

Reply #46

vick — Mon, 26 Apr 2004 08:06:35 GMT

Quote: Originally posted by BobP on April 26, 2004RHOh: Just for fun do you think it would help or hurt to have let's say six hats each containing the numbers normally drawn within the six positional ranges. Draw two numbers from each hat discarding any repeats, then wheel (normally or positionally). Better strategy then all in one hat or worse? BobPBop i do that now with random selection in microsoft excel. I select 10 numbers, with each 1 of the 10 in a tight position range and then i furthe... [ More ]

Reply #45

BobP — Mon, 26 Apr 2004 06:49:04 GMT

Quote: Originally posted by RJOh on April 25, 2004Paul, After reading the posts of other LottoSync users, I think the program is doing what it was designed to do - take over 12 hours to generate 10 numbers. It's just that you think that 10 random numbers generated in 12 or more hours should be better than 10 numbers pulled out a hat.RJOh RHOh: Just for fun do you think it would help or hurt to have let's say six hats each containing the numbers normally drawn within the six positional ranges. D... [ More ]

Reply #44

RJOh — Mon, 26 Apr 2004 01:23:22 GMT

Paul, After reading the posts of other LottoSync users, I think the program is doing what it was designed to do - take over 12 hours to generate 10 numbers. It's just that you think that 10 random numbers generated in 12 or more hours should be better than 10 numbers pulled out a hat.RJOh

Reply #43

paul762 — Sat, 24 Apr 2004 21:14:53 GMT

1 number once again tonight, this is becoming boring now

Reply #42

RJOh — Sat, 24 Apr 2004 02:25:13 GMT

Paul,I hope you're right. Good luck to you.RJOh

Reply #41

paul762 — Sat, 17 Apr 2004 20:04:07 GMT

rjoh, if guru didnt think there was a solution he wouldnt have sold lottosync which is a software for trying to predict randomness in lottery draws, i am sure he will provide sufficient evidence of this in future versions of the software. its not there yet which he will admit himself, however at least its a chance.good luck to you

Reply #40

RJOh — Sat, 17 Apr 2004 19:42:44 GMT

Quote: Originally posted by paul762 on April 17, 2004when you start getting interested into trying to solve a problem, the solution tends to be found quicker.Paul, you talk as if randomness in lotteries is a problem that has a solution, when most other people think randomness is a necessary elements in every lottery in order to guarantee that every player has an equal and fair chance to win and it's the job of lotteries commissions to make sure it stays that way.RJOh

Reply #39

paul762 — Sat, 17 Apr 2004 15:31:20 GMT

guru, you said progress wont be constant, so how do you plan to release newer versions of lottosync? what happens if you get stuck and cant progress any further, will that be the end of lottosync? in theory it sounds like it will work, however as we all know in practice its totally different, although i think when you start getting interested into trying to solve a problem, the solution tends to be found quicker.

Reply #38

Guru — Sat, 17 Apr 2004 12:54:30 GMT

reply to my jackpot within 10 to 20 tries dream/quest.Yes I do believe that one day it may become possible to do that with computersoftware. But the road is still long, and better comprehension of the deeper causes behind random activity will be necessary to make progress. Programming a soft is not the big deal, knowing and understanding randomness is the big deal. This takes time, and such progress can not be expected to be constant. It is a matter of reading others conclusions, observing ran... [ More ]

Reply #37

Spot9 — Fri, 16 Apr 2004 21:03:27 GMT

Hi,Have a look at AINet, its a free probablistic NN. I have Brainmaker, but found it not muchuse for the lottery, although the Netmaker program which comes with it, is useful for manipulatingdata.Spot9

Reply #36

vick — Fri, 16 Apr 2004 20:16:45 GMT

i used neuarl netwoks years back on the lottos = not much sucess, byt mabye today's faster computers can work things differently with it?goodluck

Reply #35

paul762 — Fri, 16 Apr 2004 17:16:27 GMT

vick, i hope the keno version is worth waiting for or ill probably forget the whole lottosync circus, maybe its because my keno game is electronic, i dont know, if so perhaps the neural network thing might be worth a shot, was thinking of brainmaker or similar, arent these supposed to be quite accurate for prng prediction? anyways good luck with your 6/49.all the best

Reply #34

vick — Thu, 15 Apr 2004 17:57:11 GMT

hahaaha paul, not only that but they predicted numbers only go up to 60, so we are losing out on alot of potential numbers.Best to wait for the final keno version to come out.i have gone back to using ver 1.6 for 649 draws though.

Reply #33

paul762 — Thu, 15 Apr 2004 16:21:25 GMT

right, i have just tested lottosync with 100 keno draws each with 4 different samples 150,400,800,1600 and i dont know what to say, except im going to wait until better versions come out especially as the highest number i achieved was 6 and to top it all off it was with the 150 sample!!! there are an awful lot of consecutive numbers appearing far to often, im going to spend the next week sleeping, to catch up

Reply #32

vick — Thu, 15 Apr 2004 13:10:09 GMT

Yes spock, it does repeat some numbers, ive tried using them as bankers or power numbers but not much success doing that. At least not here in Canada.

Reply #31

spock — Thu, 15 Apr 2004 13:00:22 GMT

If you run LS 2 or 3 times and found that you had 2 or 3 numbers repeating on each line would you use them numbers as power numbers?? i find if i run it 2 or 3 times using the same sample size that most times 2 or more numbers stay the same.Do most people with LS find that?3

Reply #30

spock — Thu, 15 Apr 2004 10:40:58 GMT

3 OUT OF 10 RIGHT WITH LS1.6. I WIN 10.00

Reply #29

Pick-4_Master — Wed, 14 Apr 2004 18:23:43 GMT

You see I told you it was a GOOD program

Reply #28

Spot9 — Wed, 14 Apr 2004 18:03:26 GMT

Hi,Lotto Prediction Pro's author just won 5/6 on the UK lottery using anew feature he is developing called Line Reducer , I think they hada syndicate playing 70 lines.Spot9

Reply #27

EXCALIBUR — Wed, 14 Apr 2004 14:23:57 GMT

Pick-4 MasterThanks a lot.

Reply #26

Pick-4_Master — Wed, 14 Apr 2004 13:02:08 GMT

Lotto-Hat is an easier program to use and doesn't have as many features but the ones it has are very effectivewhich makes it comparable to Predcition Pro.Prediction Pro is more sophisticated due to it's many features for analysis.But I wouldn't say it will help you achieve better results because it's really based on the players ability to use a programs features.A skilled player could get the same results a non skilled player wouldn't get any results.

Reply #25

Pick-4_Master — Wed, 14 Apr 2004 12:56:54 GMT

Lottery Prediction Pro from Mount Street Software? I have the 2003 version it's been updated since then but from the vesion I have it's a very good program lots of features fo analysis and wheeling.I'm quite sure the latest version is even better it's consistantly being upgraded which is good.As far as being better than LottoHat no I would say it's just as good.Some of the top programs out there are Gail Howard,Lotto-Hat,LotWin 2004,LotteryPredictionPro,Lottery Director,Lotto-Creo and Lotto-Logi... [ More ]

Reply #24

EXCALIBUR — Wed, 14 Apr 2004 00:20:42 GMT

Pick4 MasterHow are you?Have you ever tried Lottery Prediction Pro if so, what do you think of it?Is it better than Lotto Hat and or the other programs, or about the same?Is it worth getting it?And have you tried WinHunter yet and what do you think of it?Thank you for your help.

Reply #23

Pick-4_Master — Tue, 13 Apr 2004 20:35:50 GMT

Lotto-Synchronizer has a feature similiar toLotto-Cheatah with the Sample settings because Lotto-Cheatah has Depth settings used for predicting\selecting the numbers.Different Depth settings produce different results for numbers wich seems the case in the Sample settings for LottoSync.

Reply #22

paul762 — Tue, 13 Apr 2004 19:50:14 GMT

rjoh, if i was guaranteed to get 6 from 10 in 10/20 draws i would play a full coverwheel , even if i had to sell the mrs

Reply #21

RJOh — Tue, 13 Apr 2004 19:30:22 GMT

Paul,A full wheel would be 210 lines, so you are saying he was hoping to reduce the odds to 1:4200 with 20 tries which is still expecting a lot. I think it was have been more realistic to expect to reduce the odds such that smaller prizes would be won more often if not a jackpot prize.RJOh

Reply #20

paul762 — Tue, 13 Apr 2004 19:07:00 GMT

hi rjoh, i think he meant he would get the 6 numbers within the 10 in 10/20 draws, obviously if you could do that you would play a full cover wheel.

Reply #19

RJOh — Tue, 13 Apr 2004 18:06:31 GMT

Quote: Originally posted by paul762 on April 13, 2004predicting a jackpot in 10/20 tries was what guru said he was one day hoping to achieve.The odds of predicting a jackpot for a 6/49 game are 1:13,983,816, to do it in 20 tries with a 35 lines wheel would be reducing the odds to 1:700, does that some like a realistic hope?RJOh

Reply #18

paul762 — Tue, 13 Apr 2004 16:05:18 GMT

spock, i was first lured by the 80% 3 number win message that was doing the rounds at the time on another forum i think, i just dont see how the prediction engine can be improved, he says that samples arent important but why are the samples higher on 1.7 if they dont matter, i dont get it ,whats going to happen in version 1.8 1000000 samples??? we will need to win the lottery to be able to buy a crays super computer just to run minimum samples!! we dont even know his test results for the default... [ More ]

Reply #17

spock — Tue, 13 Apr 2004 12:19:34 GMT

Lets be real if i could get 3 numbers every other draw right it would give me hope....

Reply #16

paul762 — Tue, 13 Apr 2004 05:22:38 GMT

lottosyncman, predicting a jackpot in 10/20 tries was what guru said he was one day hoping to achieve.bobp i think youve hit the nail right on the head there, however i think if guru ever finds a way to automise sample rates for each draw there would be no system/software on the planet to compare, but i cant see this happening in the near future!paul.

Reply #15

BobP — Tue, 13 Apr 2004 00:53:42 GMT

Figure you're trying to mimic the random walk of a drunk so at various points you will both plant your right foot on the same square of your respective grids.The only hope you have with this and most lotto systems is consistancy of playing methodology provided the system can be relied upon to come around to a win every so often. When you have a system found previously capable of wins, you want to be there when it does it again, not off trying something different. BobP

Reply #14

lottosyncman — Mon, 12 Apr 2004 20:50:55 GMT

come on get real folks! lotto is a game of chance my feeling is that lottosync will improve my odds at winning prizes but predicting a jackpot within 10 to 20 tries i think we might be in a little bit of a dreamland!!!! lol

Reply #13

paul762 — Mon, 12 Apr 2004 20:10:17 GMT

it seems funny to me, becau

Reply #12

reddog — Mon, 12 Apr 2004 19:46:58 GMT

Quote: O

Reply #11

paul762 — Mon, 12 Apr 2004 19:36:06 GMT

guru, your theory on my keno game was wrong, lottosync did not predict better results on the first draw in all occasions that were tested, using the same prediction, better results were achieved in all cases after the first draw, however in a 50 draw test they hit no more than 4 numbers.

Reply #10

Guru — Mon, 12 Apr 2004 16:25:16 GMT

no pain, no gain

Reply #9

RJOh — Mon, 12 Apr 2004 13:14:14 GMT

Quote: Originally posted by Guru on April 12, 2004 stick to it and play frequently. That is the way to go Where have I heard that? That is the way to go to the poor house.RJOh

Reply #8

spock — Mon, 12 Apr 2004 12:51:19 GMT

The Guru has spoken.The problem is i keep losing money..

Reply #7

Guru — Mon, 12 Apr 2004 09:55:27 GMT

Spock:Too many emphasis has been put to which amount of samples you should use . Don't see it as if a setting at 500 or 600 or 700 would make those individual predictions so very different. Just pick a setting you are comfortable with on you computer, stick to it and play frequently. That is the way to go if you want the best chances of winning something big.

Reply #6

paul762 — Mon, 12 Apr 2004 09:51:53 GMT

spock, i have been saying it is random from the start because of the fact you have to choose the samples, even with 1.7 you have to choose the samples! guru told me that if it was all down to samples he would be a millionaire, the truth is one sample will work well on one draw but another sample will work better on the next, as proved when the sample that chose my 5 numbers on lotto daily play picked 0 on the next draw in which another sample would have been better, whats needed is an automation... [ More ]

Reply #5

spock — Mon, 12 Apr 2004 09:04:02 GMT

I am starting to think of LS1.6. as a random number generator because picking the sample size is a lottery in its self.People on this forum have had result's using from 300 to 1000 so which is it to be??The big difference(improvement)with 1.7.is the fact that it can pick numbers from previous drew and as we know this happens some 40% of the time. roll on the 3rd of May lets get 1.7. up and running and see if it was worth the money

Reply #4

spock — Mon, 12 Apr 2004 08:44:30 GMT

Paul.I have tried many samples from 300 to 1000 best result 3 numbers twice i major on getting 2 right.

Reply #3

paul762 — Mon, 12 Apr 2004 07:56:25 GMT

hi rjoh, these predictions are for the next draw, if we were to play every lottosync prediction every draw it would cost a fortune, it doesnt matter whats happened before because we wouldnt have been playing these numbers then anyway as we make a prediction for each draw. good observations though, thanksspock im thinking of playing 600 samples because it says somewhere best between 400-800 will post when prediction is finished.

Reply #2

spock — Sun, 11 Apr 2004 19:22:26 GMT

I have just done a prediction for UK 6/49using 500 samples my numbers are..1-2-5-11-12-14-26-35-38-44. See how we both do

Reply #1

RJOh — Sun, 11 Apr 2004 16:58:17 GMT

08/24/02 02 11 24 29 35 4008/22/01 02 04 23 24 26 3607/14/01 04 11 14 20 24 2908/23/00 02 07 10 11 18 2408/09/00 01 04 05 07 14 47As you can see, those numbers have matched 4 five times in previous Ohio649Plus, so anything is possible, maybe a five or six.Good luck to you.RJOh

something wrong with lottosync v1.6 ?

paul762 — Sun, 11 Apr 2004 12:08:10 GMT

have just done a prediction for uk 6/49 500 samples, do these numbers look unusual to anyone else ?1-2-3-4-5-7-11-24-29-36