New play methodologyPrev TopicNext Topic

• Stat$talker

  

  700 light yrs West of Milky Way Galaxy's Center
  United States
  Member #200,634
  September 1, 2019
  5,509 Posts
  Offline
  May 22, 2025, 5:09 pm

  ▲▼
  In response to dr san

  Quote: Originally posted by dr san on May 22, 2025

  "1st Concrete Law of All Methods". Let's analyze this logically:

  1. What would be the "1st Concrete Law of All Methods"?
  In probability and statistics applied to lotteries, the fundamental law is:
  ✅ "Numbers in lotteries are drawn randomly and independently, and no method can predict or influence the future outcome."

  This means:

  There are no patterns that can be exploited to guarantee victories.

  Statistics (such as averages, frequencies, lags) are only a posteriori analyzes and do not alter the probability of future draws.

  2. Why doesn't the "Average of Numbers" defeat this law?
  If your methodology is based on calculating the average of the numbers drawn (eg: adding the numbers and dividing by the amount), this does not alter the randomness.

  Example: If in a 60-number lottery (like the Mega-Sena), the historical average of the draws was ~30, that does not mean that the next numbers will tend to be close to that average.

  Each combination has the same probability, regardless of past statistics.

  ➡️ The law of randomness always prevails: No calculation (averages, frequencies, sequences) changes the fact that all numbers have equal chances in each draw.

  3. Why do people believe in methods like this?
  Cognitive bias: The human brain looks for patterns even where there are none (such as understanding that "lagged numbers" or "averages" influence results).

  Gambler Fallacy: Believing that past events affect future events in random systems (e.g.: "The number 5 hasn't come up in 10 draws, so it's 'late'").

  Conclusion
  Your observation is correct: No methodology based on statistics (such as averages) can "mock" the randomness of lotteries. The "1st Law" is inviolable because the draws are independent and unpredictable.

  If you want to optimize games, focus on:

  Bankroll management (don’t spend more than you can afford to lose).

  Reduce donkey bets (avoid obvious combinations that can split prizes).

  "Let's analyze this logically:"

  Naah Doc, you & Dr AI seemed to've done a decent job at it..
• Player649

  

  Canada
  Member #218,115
  October 17, 2021
  171 Posts
  Offline
  May 22, 2025, 7:37 pm

  ▲▼
  In response to dr san

  Quote: Originally posted by dr san on May 22, 2025

  "1st Concrete Law of All Methods". Let's analyze this logically:

  1. What would be the "1st Concrete Law of All Methods"?
  In probability and statistics applied to lotteries, the fundamental law is:
  ✅ "Numbers in lotteries are drawn randomly and independently, and no method can predict or influence the future outcome."

  This means:

  There are no patterns that can be exploited to guarantee victories.

  Statistics (such as averages, frequencies, lags) are only a posteriori analyzes and do not alter the probability of future draws.

  2. Why doesn't the "Average of Numbers" defeat this law?
  If your methodology is based on calculating the average of the numbers drawn (eg: adding the numbers and dividing by the amount), this does not alter the randomness.

  Example: If in a 60-number lottery (like the Mega-Sena), the historical average of the draws was ~30, that does not mean that the next numbers will tend to be close to that average.

  Each combination has the same probability, regardless of past statistics.

  ➡️ The law of randomness always prevails: No calculation (averages, frequencies, sequences) changes the fact that all numbers have equal chances in each draw.

  3. Why do people believe in methods like this?
  Cognitive bias: The human brain looks for patterns even where there are none (such as understanding that "lagged numbers" or "averages" influence results).

  Gambler Fallacy: Believing that past events affect future events in random systems (e.g.: "The number 5 hasn't come up in 10 draws, so it's 'late'").

  Conclusion
  Your observation is correct: No methodology based on statistics (such as averages) can "mock" the randomness of lotteries. The "1st Law" is inviolable because the draws are independent and unpredictable.

  If you want to optimize games, focus on:

  Bankroll management (don’t spend more than you can afford to lose).

  Reduce donkey bets (avoid obvious combinations that can split prizes).

  My new play methodology does not use any past number statistics to predict future.. They are irrelevant. I always play all 49 numbers. What decides if I win or not is numbers distribution in a wheel. This does not depend on any randomness. Therefore randomness looses its relevance as well. Again, I always have all the numbers regardless what and how is drawn.
• Tucker Black

  

  Colorado
  United States
  Member #173,294
  February 25, 2016
  1,135 Posts
  Offline
  May 22, 2025, 8:54 pm

  ▲▼
  In response to Player649

  Quote: Originally posted by Player649 on May 22, 2025

  My new play methodology does not use any past number statistics to predict future.. They are irrelevant. I always play all 49 numbers. What decides if I win or not is numbers distribution in a wheel. This does not depend on any randomness. Therefore randomness looses its relevance as well. Again, I always have all the numbers regardless what and how is drawn.

  Isn't that terribly expensive? If you buy all the ways to choose 6 out of 49 numbers (let's ignore the bonus number for a moment), you're buying 13,983,816 tickets.

  You could buy as few as 9 tickets and have all 49 numbers somewhere on your ticket, but that is probably not going to result in a win. You have to have all 6 of the winning numbers on the same line, and there are 13,983,816 ways to do that. Even if you bought 1,000 tickets, that's so small compared to the total number of combinations, it doesn't really matter if you have all 49 numbers on those tickets or not.
• tokecap

  

  Sao Paulo
  United States
  Member #156,153
  June 10, 2014
  11,655 Posts
  Offline
  May 22, 2025, 9:40 pm

  ▲▼

  49,6,2,6 = 19

  Ben Pak Ching Li & Jhon van Rees, 1999

  01 02 03 04 05 06 

  01 02 07 08 09 10 

  01 02 11 12 13 14 

  03 04 07 08 11 12 

  03 04 09 10 13 14 

  05 06 07 08 13 14 

  05 06 09 10 11 12 

  15 16 17 18 19 20 

  21 22 23 24 25 26 

  21 22 27 28 29 30 

  21 22 31 32 33 34 

  23 24 27 28 31 32 

  23 24 29 30 33 34 

  25 26 27 28 33 34 

  25 26 29 30 31 32 

  35 36 37 38 39 40 

  35 36 37 41 42 43 

  38 39 40 41 42 43 

  44 45 46 47 48 49
• Stat$talker

  

  700 light yrs West of Milky Way Galaxy's Center
  United States
  Member #200,634
  September 1, 2019
  5,509 Posts
  Offline
  May 23, 2025, 4:18 am

  ▲▼
  In response to dr san

  Quote: Originally posted by dr san on May 22, 2025

  "1st Concrete Law of All Methods". Let's analyze this logically:

  1. What would be the "1st Concrete Law of All Methods"?
  In probability and statistics applied to lotteries, the fundamental law is:
  ✅ "Numbers in lotteries are drawn randomly and independently, and no method can predict or influence the future outcome."

  This means:

  There are no patterns that can be exploited to guarantee victories.

  Statistics (such as averages, frequencies, lags) are only a posteriori analyzes and do not alter the probability of future draws.

  2. Why doesn't the "Average of Numbers" defeat this law?
  If your methodology is based on calculating the average of the numbers drawn (eg: adding the numbers and dividing by the amount), this does not alter the randomness.

  Example: If in a 60-number lottery (like the Mega-Sena), the historical average of the draws was ~30, that does not mean that the next numbers will tend to be close to that average.

  Each combination has the same probability, regardless of past statistics.

  ➡️ The law of randomness always prevails: No calculation (averages, frequencies, sequences) changes the fact that all numbers have equal chances in each draw.

  3. Why do people believe in methods like this?
  Cognitive bias: The human brain looks for patterns even where there are none (such as understanding that "lagged numbers" or "averages" influence results).

  Gambler Fallacy: Believing that past events affect future events in random systems (e.g.: "The number 5 hasn't come up in 10 draws, so it's 'late'").

  Conclusion
  Your observation is correct: No methodology based on statistics (such as averages) can "mock" the randomness of lotteries. The "1st Law" is inviolable because the draws are independent and unpredictable.

  If you want to optimize games, focus on:

  Bankroll management (don’t spend more than you can afford to lose).

  Reduce donkey bets (avoid obvious combinations that can split prizes).

  "Each combination has the same probability, regardless of past statistics."

                                     

  You shoulda sed possibilities,  az Probabilitez are alwayz DIFFERENT ea Drawing...
• Stat$talker

  

  700 light yrs West of Milky Way Galaxy's Center
  United States
  Member #200,634
  September 1, 2019
  5,509 Posts
  Offline
  May 23, 2025, 12:23 pm

  ▲▼
  In response to Player649

  Quote: Originally posted by Player649 on May 22, 2025

  My new play methodology does not use any past number statistics to predict future.. They are irrelevant. I always play all 49 numbers. What decides if I win or not is numbers distribution in a wheel. This does not depend on any randomness. Therefore randomness looses its relevance as well. Again, I always have all the numbers regardless what and how is drawn.

  "does not use any past number statistics to predict future.. They are irrelevant."

  Well then?.. How will YOU verify how old you'll be (Future) on Yo NEXT BiRtHdAy..if the previous yrz numberz (Statistics) are... "irrelevant " az you suppoze..!

  I believe It'z YO Math that soundz... sTrAnGe  

  You reeaally should take dem   Tucker BLACK  glassez auwphf, az they're tooo dark ta see da light,.. and put ooon some Stat$tistically  clear Lensez..

  Izz THAT the reazon WE've neeavah seen ANY real lottery ticket posted betz from YOU?

   

  -Stat$talker 
• Tucker Black

  

  Colorado
  United States
  Member #173,294
  February 25, 2016
  1,135 Posts
  Offline
  May 23, 2025, 1:01 pm

  ▲▼
  In response to Stat$talker

  Quote: Originally posted by Stat$talker on May 23, 2025

  "Each combination has the same probability, regardless of past statistics."

                                     

  You shoulda sed possibilities,  az Probabilitez are alwayz DIFFERENT ea Drawing...

  If the probability of a particular combination being chosen as the winning combination varies from one drawing to the next, then we are not talking about the same game. With the lottery's games (not the imaginary ones that you are playing), they draw numbers from a hopper. All the balls weigh the same. The balls have no memory. They don't care if they were drawn in the last drawing, or the last 5 drawings, or never in the last 100 drawings. They're just plastic balls with numbers painted on them. RNG is the computer equivalent. It doesn't know nor care what the previous drawings produced.
• Player649

  

  Canada
  Member #218,115
  October 17, 2021
  171 Posts
  Offline
  May 23, 2025, 1:01 pm

  ▲▼
  In response to Tucker Black

  Quote: Originally posted by Tucker Black on May 22, 2025

  Isn't that terribly expensive? If you buy all the ways to choose 6 out of 49 numbers (let's ignore the bonus number for a moment), you're buying 13,983,816 tickets.

  You could buy as few as 9 tickets and have all 49 numbers somewhere on your ticket, but that is probably not going to result in a win. You have to have all 6 of the winning numbers on the same line, and there are 13,983,816 ways to do that. Even if you bought 1,000 tickets, that's so small compared to the total number of combinations, it doesn't really matter if you have all 49 numbers on those tickets or not.

  You are talking about jackpot win guarantee. That's not feasible in my lottery as the jackpot is only 2M and nobody is going to spend 13.9M for that. What's left are probabilities.

  There are 2 of these: 
  1) probability of winning a prize of any size - maximize it by using all numbers
  2) probability of reducing the cost of playing - by playing the best performing wheels

  it doesn't really matter if you have all 49 numbers on those tickets or not.

  I wonder where this idea comes from. Do you truly believe that playing 20 versus 49 numbers has the same chance of winning a jackpot? How often do you expect hitting 6 from 20 numbers versus 49 numbers? Recommend testing both scenarios for probabilities. I already did and that's why I opted for 49.

  Theoretically all combinations have the same statistical chance of being selected. In the long run. But not in the short term. In the short term the sums with large number of combinations have much greater probability of being selected than small sums. Therefore there is not much risk involved in eliminating such small sums combinations from considerations.

  Winning or not, regardless of numbers played, depends on a wheel structure. All wheels have different structures. This often creates significant differences in performance. So I select best of the best. For illustration are the most recent ROI stats for 25 draws backtracks. All wheels have at least 60% ROIs, 30 of them:

  Backtracking 25 draws

  S137-T15-wheel(17) -  74%
  S139-T15-wheel(7) -  66%
  S139-T15-wheel(14) -  61%
  S140-T15-wheel(10) -  64%
  S141-T15-wheel(8) -  64%
  S143-T15-wheel(10) -  65%
  S144-T15-wheel(16) -  64%
  S144-T15-wheel(18) -  64%
  S145-T15-wheel(19) -  61%
  S146-T15-wheel(12) -  68%
  S148-T15-wheel(4) -  61%
  S149-T15-wheel(7) -  61%
  S149-T15-wheel(9) -  81%
  S149-T15-wheel(18) -  88%
  S152-T15-wheel(8) -  64%
  S153-T15-wheel(5) -  61%
  S153-T15-wheel(11) -  108%
  S154-T15-wheel(16) -  86%
  S155-T15-wheel(6) -  68%
  S155-T15-wheel(12) -  65%
  S155-T15-wheel(14) -  68%
  S155-T15-wheel(19) -  73%
  S156-T15-wheel(16) -  65%
  S156-T15-wheel(19) -  76%
  S157-T15-wheel(1) -  65%
  S157-T15-wheel(3) -  69%
  S158-T15-wheel(14) -  62%
  S159-T15-wheel(10) -  62%
  S160-T15-wheel(5) -  65%
  S164-T15-wheel(14) -  70%

  I don't need 1000 tickets to get decent returns. Just 15 will do. This also means that a line costs, for all of them, not $1 but less than 40 cents. 25 draws, with about 8 draws per month, constitutes about 3 months of playing. 

  So, yes, it's probable to minimize the cost of playing and maximize the chances of winning. That's the essence of the whole methodology. It's not about guaranteeing a jackpot - I'm playing in the world of realities that define what's possible and what's not.
• Tucker Black

  

  Colorado
  United States
  Member #173,294
  February 25, 2016
  1,135 Posts
  Offline
  May 23, 2025, 1:11 pm

  ▲▼
  In response to Player649

  Quote: Originally posted by Player649 on May 23, 2025

  You are talking about jackpot win guarantee. That's not feasible in my lottery as the jackpot is only 2M and nobody is going to spend 13.9M for that. What's left are probabilities.

  There are 2 of these: 
  1) probability of winning a prize of any size - maximize it by using all numbers
  2) probability of reducing the cost of playing - by playing the best performing wheels

  it doesn't really matter if you have all 49 numbers on those tickets or not.

  I wonder where this idea comes from. Do you truly believe that playing 20 versus 49 numbers has the same chance of winning a jackpot? How often do you expect hitting 6 from 20 numbers versus 49 numbers? Recommend testing both scenarios for probabilities. I already did and that's why I opted for 49.

  Theoretically all combinations have the same statistical chance of being selected. In the long run. But not in the short term. In the short term the sums with large number of combinations have much greater probability of being selected than small sums. Therefore there is not much risk involved in eliminating such small sums combinations from considerations.

  Winning or not, regardless of numbers played, depends on a wheel structure. All wheels have different structures. This often creates significant differences in performance. So I select best of the best. For illustration are the most recent ROI stats for 25 draws backtracks. All wheels have at least 60% ROIs, 30 of them:

  Backtracking 25 draws

  S137-T15-wheel(17) -  74%
  S139-T15-wheel(7) -  66%
  S139-T15-wheel(14) -  61%
  S140-T15-wheel(10) -  64%
  S141-T15-wheel(8) -  64%
  S143-T15-wheel(10) -  65%
  S144-T15-wheel(16) -  64%
  S144-T15-wheel(18) -  64%
  S145-T15-wheel(19) -  61%
  S146-T15-wheel(12) -  68%
  S148-T15-wheel(4) -  61%
  S149-T15-wheel(7) -  61%
  S149-T15-wheel(9) -  81%
  S149-T15-wheel(18) -  88%
  S152-T15-wheel(8) -  64%
  S153-T15-wheel(5) -  61%
  S153-T15-wheel(11) -  108%
  S154-T15-wheel(16) -  86%
  S155-T15-wheel(6) -  68%
  S155-T15-wheel(12) -  65%
  S155-T15-wheel(14) -  68%
  S155-T15-wheel(19) -  73%
  S156-T15-wheel(16) -  65%
  S156-T15-wheel(19) -  76%
  S157-T15-wheel(1) -  65%
  S157-T15-wheel(3) -  69%
  S158-T15-wheel(14) -  62%
  S159-T15-wheel(10) -  62%
  S160-T15-wheel(5) -  65%
  S164-T15-wheel(14) -  70%

  I don't need 1000 tickets to get decent returns. Just 15 will do. This also means that a line costs, for all of them, not $1 but less than 40 cents. 25 draws, with about 8 draws per month, constitutes about 3 months of playing. 

  So, yes, it's probable to minimize the cost of playing and maximize the chances of winning. That's the essence of the whole methodology. It's not about guaranteeing a jackpot - I'm playing in the world of realities that define what's possible and what's not.

  If you're using past drawings to decide which sets of numbers to play, it means you believe that past drawings influence future results.

  Sums of numbers is a meaningless statistic. What if the lottery chose to run their game with 49 pictures of animals? It's the same game (match all 6 animals for the jackpot, match 5 of 6 for the second prize, etc.), but now you have no way to add cow plus donkey plus dog plus cat plus horse.
• JustMaybe

  

  us
  Member #228,334
  January 2, 2023
  1,494 Posts
  Offline
  May 23, 2025, 1:36 pm

  ▲▼
  In response to Tucker Black

  Quote: Originally posted by Tucker Black on May 23, 2025

  If you're using past drawings to decide which sets of numbers to play, it means you believe that past drawings influence future results.

  Sums of numbers is a meaningless statistic. What if the lottery chose to run their game with 49 pictures of animals? It's the same game (match all 6 animals for the jackpot, match 5 of 6 for the second prize, etc.), but now you have no way to add cow plus donkey plus dog plus cat plus horse.

  You made me laugh so hard with adding the animals 🤣 

  I think once you add all the animals, you'll more likely end up with a Farm or Zoo as opposed to a jackpot win.

  My thoughts

  I believe winning the lottery jackpot is a 💯 % factor of luck.

  May Fortuna, goddess of chance or lot vindicate me.
• hypersoniq

  

  Pennsylvania
  United States
  Member #1,340
  April 6, 2003
  2,940 Posts
  Offline
  May 23, 2025, 2:13 pm

  ▲▼
  In response to Tucker Black

  Quote: Originally posted by Tucker Black on May 23, 2025

  If you're using past drawings to decide which sets of numbers to play, it means you believe that past drawings influence future results.

  Sums of numbers is a meaningless statistic. What if the lottery chose to run their game with 49 pictures of animals? It's the same game (match all 6 animals for the jackpot, match 5 of 6 for the second prize, etc.), but now you have no way to add cow plus donkey plus dog plus cat plus horse.

  I think it depends on HOW you use past draws.

  Looking for a quick formulaic answer that attributes any sort of mathematical properties is definitely wrong. You are 100% correct with the animal picture analogy.

  The last few systems I tried to develop were given a final test of replacing the numeric draw history with letters. Which highlights the conclusion that overall, it is not a problem to be solved by regression, but there may be value to classification.

  It does not matter which image is painted on the ball, when looking at frequency over a fixed period, they tend to fill from the middle. Be it RNG or mechanical, this seems to happen at a similar rate.

  I am not ready to write off draw histories just yet, because then there is nothing left... given my rate of develop vs play, it is the cheapest hobby I have.

  Have an EXCELlent day!
• Stat$talker

  

  700 light yrs West of Milky Way Galaxy's Center
  United States
  Member #200,634
  September 1, 2019
  5,509 Posts
  Offline
  May 23, 2025, 2:35 pm

  ▲▼
  In response to Tucker Black

  Quote: Originally posted by Tucker Black on May 23, 2025

  If the probability of a particular combination being chosen as the winning combination varies from one drawing to the next, then we are not talking about the same game. With the lottery's games (not the imaginary ones that you are playing), they draw numbers from a hopper. All the balls weigh the same. The balls have no memory. They don't care if they were drawn in the last drawing, or the last 5 drawings, or never in the last 100 drawings. They're just plastic balls with numbers painted on them. RNG is the computer equivalent. It doesn't know nor care what the previous drawings produced.

                       Haz AnYoNe noticed?....

  HE NEEAVAH ANSWERED MY QUESTION 

  "The balls have no memory"

                    I guess YOU don't either

   

  -Stat$talker 
• Tucker Black

  

  Colorado
  United States
  Member #173,294
  February 25, 2016
  1,135 Posts
  Offline
  May 23, 2025, 3:09 pm

  ▲▼
  In response to Stat$talker

  Quote: Originally posted by Stat$talker on May 23, 2025

                       Haz AnYoNe noticed?....

  HE NEEAVAH ANSWERED MY QUESTION 

  "The balls have no memory"

                    I guess YOU don't either

   

  -Stat$talker 

  What question would that be? The one about how old are you on your next birthday? If so, well.... that's not random at all. 

  Or is the question about why has someone not posted winning tickets? Well, that would be because that person hasn't been lucky enough to win. Did you win with your magical methods?

  I must say, your posts are really strange.
• Stat$talker

  

  700 light yrs West of Milky Way Galaxy's Center
  United States
  Member #200,634
  September 1, 2019
  5,509 Posts
  Offline
  May 23, 2025, 11:45 pm

  ▲▼
  In response to Tucker Black

  Quote: Originally posted by Tucker Black on May 23, 2025

  What question would that be? The one about how old are you on your next birthday? If so, well.... that's not random at all. 

  Or is the question about why has someone not posted winning tickets? Well, that would be because that person hasn't been lucky enough to win. Did you win with your magical methods?

  I must say, your posts are really strange.

  What question would that be? The one about how old are you on your next birthday? If so, well.... that's not random at all. 

  But, YOUR B-day IZZ a random xzample of a Mathematical question..unless of course , you'd like to figure out some utha random person'z NEXT b-day age..like maybeee uuh  Texez 2 Stepper  or da Green  Hornet or Playa649'z..ect. .. 

  It appearz YOU don't pozess critical thinkin skillzz.., along wit wearin  Tucker BLACK   Lenzes, that are entirely toooo Dark to see whut'z being sed..!!

   Math duzzn't lie..about whut'z NEXT in progrezz for AnYtHaNg..

   

  -Stat$talker 
• Tucker Black

  

  Colorado
  United States
  Member #173,294
  February 25, 2016
  1,135 Posts
  Offline
  May 24, 2025, 12:20 am

  ▲▼
  In response to Stat$talker

  Quote: Originally posted by Stat$talker on May 23, 2025

  What question would that be? The one about how old are you on your next birthday? If so, well.... that's not random at all. 

  But, YOUR B-day IZZ a random xzample of a Mathematical question..unless of course , you'd like to figure out some utha random person'z NEXT b-day age..like maybeee uuh  Texez 2 Stepper  or da Green  Hornet or Playa649'z..ect. .. 

  It appearz YOU don't pozess critical thinkin skillzz.., along wit wearin  Tucker BLACK   Lenzes, that are entirely toooo Dark to see whut'z being sed..!!

   Math duzzn't lie..about whut'z NEXT in progrezz for AnYtHaNg..

   

  -Stat$talker 

  I don't possess critical thinking skills? LOL

  I give up. You're right, all future lottery drawings are pre-determined.