Basic system analysis question

Reply #12

johnph77 — Tue, 10 Aug 2004 06:38:54 GMT

JKING -Answer in a nutshell? No. In any lottery any number will appear the same number of times when the entire roster of possibilities is listed. In a 6/49 lottery, for instance, any number from 1 to 49 will appear 1,712,304 times in 13,983,816 total combinations. The object of filters is to eliminate (or highlight) the more extreme possibilities.gljohn

Reply #11

RJOh — Tue, 10 Aug 2004 05:10:48 GMT

Quote: Originally posted by BobP on August 09, 2004Let's just say we're all playing in a 6/49 lottery and I decide not to play the six numbers from the previous draw in the next. A simple filter correct about half of the time. BobPIn the Ohio649 SuperLotto, there have been 422 drawings and 170 of those drawings had one number from the previous drawing, 62 had 2 numbers from the previous drawing and 10 had 3 numbers from the previous drawing, so in that game, a player would have had a chance to... [ More ]

Reply #10

JKING — Tue, 10 Aug 2004 03:50:37 GMT

Maybe I'm not understanding what's going on here or just missing a basic concept, but even with a pure statistical approach, aren't cetain combinations or certain numbers elimated because of low probability...or essentially a filter after another manner? My mind is having a hard time with how any number/combination reduction scheme does not utilize what most laymen would call a filter. Enlighten me, please.

Reply #9

johnph77 — Tue, 10 Aug 2004 03:28:21 GMT

38-43-44-45-46-47One of the 6/49 Canadian lotteries (National? Provincial?) 21 Oct 2000.

Reply #8

dragon — Tue, 10 Aug 2004 00:01:19 GMT

Quote: Originally posted by JKING on August 08, 2004Dragon,So you think taditional probabilty should be the priority, but historical filters could be useful?Actually, when you read my post, I am stating against filters. I am blaming Gail for the filters, to some degree, but what I mean with her winning is not that the filters work, but that she is selling lots of books and systems and software.Of course, I always like to read BobP's common sense feedback and I have to nod to his comments. Clear... [ More ]

Reply #7

lottoarchitect — Mon, 09 Aug 2004 16:09:40 GMT

JKing, this is what I've done in my program with all required tools to do so.

Reply #6

JKING — Mon, 09 Aug 2004 05:51:22 GMT

What I'm running into with filtering is this. I'm about twenty filters in my program. I consistantly monitor which ones fail the most. Then either, get rid of them or change the range within them. I really like the idea of running back checks through prior games to validify the effectiveness of the filter. I also like the statistical approach as a conparison tool. This because, with filters I can get the combinations reduced to a manageable amount...within my budget. Where as the statistical app... [ More ]

Reply #5

BobP — Mon, 09 Aug 2004 05:02:32 GMT

Let's just say we're all playing in a 6/49 lottery and I decide not to play the six numbers from the previous draw in the next. A simple filter correct about half of the time. When correct this simple filter means I'm playing in a 6/43 game and EIGHT MILLION COMBINATIONS are swept off the table !!! (That's jackpot wise, I would be sweeping away half the potential 3, 4 and 5 number prizes too.)Clearly the odds are still huge against my winning, but in this draw I am playing at much better odds... [ More ]

Reply #4

JKING — Mon, 09 Aug 2004 01:40:31 GMT

I understand the debate between both of the methods. Most of the pros and cons of each. And I can respect all the points of view even if I disgree. Becuase with each of them is usually something good and useful. One fact remains though: Highest Lifetime Prize Ratio Member Prize Ratio Wagers Winnings 1.137.33%$932$1,2802.118.00%$3,610$4,2603.112.35%$623$7004.108.18%$3,300$3,5705.104.14%$3,860$4,0206.88.52%$9,184$8,1307.77.59%$5,026$3,9008.76.47%$9,532$7,2909.75.27%$7,094$5,34010.70.20%$527$3... [ More ]

Reply #3

RJOh — Sun, 08 Aug 2004 23:10:22 GMT

Have there ever been a time when 5 or 6 sequential numbers have been drawn in any lottery? I've seen 3 quite a few times and 4 once or twice but never 5 or 6.RJOh

Reply #2

dragon — Sun, 08 Aug 2004 22:30:33 GMT

I did extensive history tracking back in the 80ies, even before PCs were out. Never found anything worthwhile and abandoned the practice. Whenever I hint at this here, I get arguments from all sides. There seems to be an almost religious following of folks analyzing history for the purpose of making decisions to pick numbers. Everyone has his or her own approach. I personally think there is nothing to be found in history, and it's completely useless to even look at it. It's gone and it has no... [ More ]

Reply #1

RJOh — Sun, 08 Aug 2004 22:21:54 GMT

You have run into the same problems that system players and others who try to predict the winning numbers. You analyzed the past history of a game, developed a theoretical model to predict future numbers without back testing it to get any idea of the percent of times the model might be correct. Is your model less correct now than it would have been in the past? Even if your model picked a group of numbers with all the winning numbers 50% of the time, it's still a gamble because it's unlikely... [ More ]

Basic system analysis question

JKING — Sun, 08 Aug 2004 20:27:19 GMT

There seems to be a couple recurring elements of anaylysis. The most probable combinations and historical tracking.I've taken the historical approach as the highest prioity and the probable approach as the secondary consideration. While, from what I think I'm seeing, other people are taking the opposite approach.I feel that between multiple lottery machines, and the occasional changes of balls within them, makes tracking to a normalized probability curve questionable. In fact, the few times I've... [ More ]