6/46 Discussion For July 16, 2003
- Thread starter gsobier
- Start date
Beaker
Member
Take a look at 1545-1546-1547
1545 3 5 6 12 14 30 B19 - is a low sum draw - no 40's
1546 4 21 23 31 43 45 B25 - has 4-21 in it
1547 1-2-6-22-36-47 B41 The 2 hit here after 33 draws with a few other good good goodies
Yeah you're right - the past cannot predict the future - pure coincidence no indication whatsoever.
1545 3 5 6 12 14 30 B19 - is a low sum draw - no 40's
1546 4 21 23 31 43 45 B25 - has 4-21 in it
1547 1-2-6-22-36-47 B41 The 2 hit here after 33 draws with a few other good good goodies
Yeah you're right - the past cannot predict the future - pure coincidence no indication whatsoever.
Maggie, I did,I think Tho when I look at my picks and look at Georges chart, I fall in the 2 and 4 category, oh well I'm not changing them.
Btw, for what its worth if you were coming to my neck of the woods, I would arrange to say hi, I know you mentioned you were up here last year, and that was about the time I was offline for several months.
Btw, for what its worth if you were coming to my neck of the woods, I would arrange to say hi, I know you mentioned you were up here last year, and that was about the time I was offline for several months.
George 30/19 set
There are 2 sets . Ist set contains 30 numbers other set contains 19 numbers.
As per Statistics , Out of 7 numbers First set should have atleast 4 numbers and IInd set should have 2 numbers.
What is great about it?
If Ist set has 6 or 7 numbers and IInd set has only 1 or 0 numbers,
Then I will claim that George is great.
There are 2 sets . Ist set contains 30 numbers other set contains 19 numbers.
As per Statistics , Out of 7 numbers First set should have atleast 4 numbers and IInd set should have 2 numbers.
What is great about it?
If Ist set has 6 or 7 numbers and IInd set has only 1 or 0 numbers,
Then I will claim that George is great.
Beaker
Member
Re: George 30/19 set
You should be able to produce random sets with the same result. But, since no one is posting that, I look at George's set and presume he has done some work to say these 30 are better picks than these 19.
If I had to pick 19 numbers, I might not pick all of George's second set.
You are right, strictly speaking. 4.3 should come from 30 and 2.7 should come from 19.Pradeep said:
You should be able to produce random sets with the same result. But, since no one is posting that, I look at George's set and presume he has done some work to say these 30 are better picks than these 19.
If I had to pick 19 numbers, I might not pick all of George's second set.
Dennis Bassboss
Member
Re: Re: George 30/19 set
Statistically speaking Pradeep is right...But remember we were the first to hammer at this when George first came in here...We than realized that George is looking at stuff to filter and improve from there (He's the one that gave us delta pairing which as yet been explored to it's full potential...and I do think that some jewels are hidden from these..) Lets see this at a starting point of discussion and not as a close and finish thing...besides when we start looking at the numbers we are all looking at the total possible 49 numbers...only after we decide which ones to toss out....or to include in our sets...And the final line of Beaker says it all...It gives us a picture of what diversity/ratio we should look at....without having to take this picture ourselves....Now am I going to follow this blindly every draw.....No! But I will look at it every draw!Beaker said:You are right, strictly speaking. 4.3 should come from 30 and 2.7 should come from 19.
You should be able to produce random sets with the same result. But, since no one is posting that, I look at George's set and presume he has done some work to say these 30 are better picks than these 19.
If I had to pick 19 numbers, I might not pick all of George's second set.
Dennis Bassboss
Member
Re: Extremely sorry.
No harms done at all Pradeep....looking forward to see you post your set from time to time...Pradeep said:
Beaker
Member
WINHunter announcers
Dennis and everyone. While you guys are going through the new release I'll post what I get for the new announcer trigger.
Latest results:
15: 15, 2 of 6
14: 11, 3 of 6
13: 12, 2 of 6
12: 12, 3 of 6
11: 15, 4 of 6
10: 11, 1 of 6
9: 12, 2 of 6
8: 15, 2 of 6
7: 15, 2 of 6
6: 16, 1 of 6
5: 10, 2 of 6
4: 10, 2 of 6
3: 12, 2 of 6
2: 12, 3 of 6
1: 12, 2 of 6 This was the last draw
Predictions for July 16th using 6 number history:
New Stack
12 Predictions for the next drawing:
1-5-7-8-18-20-22-24-29-35-37-48
Predictions for July 16th using 7 number history:
11 Predictions for the next drawing:
5-6-7-8-18-20-24-29-30-33-48
MIght see a few from these lists
Dennis and everyone. While you guys are going through the new release I'll post what I get for the new announcer trigger.
Latest results:
15: 15, 2 of 6
14: 11, 3 of 6
13: 12, 2 of 6
12: 12, 3 of 6
11: 15, 4 of 6
10: 11, 1 of 6
9: 12, 2 of 6
8: 15, 2 of 6
7: 15, 2 of 6
6: 16, 1 of 6
5: 10, 2 of 6
4: 10, 2 of 6
3: 12, 2 of 6
2: 12, 3 of 6
1: 12, 2 of 6 This was the last draw
Predictions for July 16th using 6 number history:
New Stack
12 Predictions for the next drawing:
1-5-7-8-18-20-22-24-29-35-37-48
Predictions for July 16th using 7 number history:
11 Predictions for the next drawing:
5-6-7-8-18-20-24-29-30-33-48
MIght see a few from these lists
Peter:
I've been experimenting with a few things and some of the results are pretty good. As you all know, I filter. Well, what about filter and then simulate a wheel with what remains to create coverage? The catch is, the filtering must be done well enough to retain big hitters... ...I've narrowed down to less than 500,000 sets and the
was in my list of sets to choose from (how do you like those odds folks?). So far no pay dirt yet... ...one of these draws. When I did a less aggresive run there were many more winners to pick from. I feel there is a balance point to allow for the optimum performance and return on the processing on sets based on previous history.
Of course, delta pairing is part of the screen process once candidates are selected for a draw too.
Regards,
George
I've been experimenting with a few things and some of the results are pretty good. As you all know, I filter. Well, what about filter and then simulate a wheel with what remains to create coverage? The catch is, the filtering must be done well enough to retain big hitters... ...I've narrowed down to less than 500,000 sets and the
was in my list of sets to choose from (how do you like those odds folks?). So far no pay dirt yet... ...one of these draws. When I did a less aggresive run there were many more winners to pick from. I feel there is a balance point to allow for the optimum performance and return on the processing on sets based on previous history.Of course, delta pairing is part of the screen process once candidates are selected for a draw
too.Regards,
George
peter said: