Re: Combos v Balls Observation


"Evil Nigel" <useweb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:13ju3tji259me81@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Most of my lottery systems are based around evaluating the relative
'likelihood' of each individual ball appearing in the next draw. However
readers with high boredom threshholds will know that I've started playing
with Excel and doing analysis on a 'per combo' basis.

My system takes nearly 10 hours to run to 'evaluate' the UK 6/49, so I've
started crunching the rather more manageable UK Daily Play draw (7/27,
888030 combos, approx 1 hour to process) to test the concepts involved.

After only a few draws, one thing I've noticed that I find rather
surprising is that any correlation between the actual ranking of a drawn
combo and the number of matching balls of the 'top-ranked' combo is very
weak.

good one!

surprise? i've tried to save you a lot of bother and a lot of time by
pointing this out to you (and everyone else) on numerous occasions over a
period of several years. now that you've seen it for yourself, maybe you'll
be convinced that this kind of analysis leads nowhere.

it's difficult to not make that sound like a putdown or an "i told you so".
trust the fact that this is not my intent.


For example, yesterday the best combo was evaluated as
08 15 16 20 24 26 27 and the drawn combo was 02 05 10 13 15 21 25.

The drawn combo was ranked 2768th out of 888030 (significantly better than
average), and yet only achieved a 1-match (somewhat worse than the 1.8
average).

Is anyone else playing around with crunching combos rather than balls? I'd
like to know if you're getting similar results.

at least now you're closer to being on the right track. chasing individual
numbers (balls) is like trying to herd housecats. they simply refuse to
comply with your wishes or commands and defy all attempts to control them.

the best "crunching" method that i've come up with after some 25 years of
working the problem is to study the footprint or "type" of combo that is
more probable to be drawn as opposed to the type of combo that is (keyword
here) *relatively* less probable to be drawn.

this involves assigning certain characteristics, whether intrinsic or
artificial, to the manner in which a winning combo is structured. by doing
so, individual numbers are mostly ignored...and therefore none are
eliminated from play unless there's a damn good logical reason based on
other possible factors...such as the "hot-cold" theory that so many players
favor. this often leads to being burned or frozen out as i'm sure most
players have experienced at one time or another.

a proper study of such characteristics provides a player with a
comprehensive overview of *how* each possible combo is structured and
therefore offers some insight into *why* the individual numbers combine in
ways that the laws of probability make reliably predictable.

a study of the game's draw history is then valuable in the sense that it
will confirm that in the long run, the laws of probability are being obeyed
as predicted. the history may not affect the future directly, but it
provides a reasonably reliable road map of what may be reasonably expected
around the next corner. barring unforseen circumstance, what worked in the
past should continue to work in the future.

there is of course a lot more to this that could be expanded upon if anyone
cares.


NB The 2768 appears to be a one-off fluke, although I'm hoping the
turquoise element of the system will make it volatile. The prize tiers for
Daily Play are largely fixed (ie they might vary in the event of eg 01 02
03 04 05 06 07 being drawn), but if only I'd known in advance and bought
the best 2768 combos, it would have been worth £30,000 for the 7/7.

i think most people here would agree that "knowing in advance" is *thee*
fanciest trick of all time. unfortunately the best we poor mortals have to
work with is the educated guess and hope (wishful thinking). that could very
well be the best strategy of all.

if anyone wants to continue this discussion in a civil and sensible manner,
i would welcome that for a change.


Evil Nigel














.

Quantcast