6/49 Discussion For May 28
- Thread starter mon
- Start date
BEST Bet
Sheba:
Heck, you could have started the BEST Bet thread here. I did it for you guys and then I see you posted there too.
I guess I'm the designated caretaker of "BEST Bet" (really doesn't bother me one bit, could be a respect thing, oh, is that it
, to be flattered)... ...is that the score here?
Regards,
George
Sheba:
Heck, you could have started the BEST Bet thread here. I did it for you guys and then I see you posted there too.
I guess I'm the designated caretaker of "BEST Bet" (really doesn't bother me one bit, could be a respect thing, oh, is that it
, to be flattered)... ...is that the score here?Regards,
George
Sheba said:I have the 27 as my best bet for this week!
Sheba__~~~ ™
Mon:
You can say that again about the last draw, it just didn't pay to win the jackpot, 4 winners split $.5M this time. If I did win on the other hand, I'd still take it
.
Regards,
George
You can say that again about the last draw, it just didn't pay
to win the jackpot, 4 winners split $.5M this time. If I did win on the other hand, I'd still take it.Regards,
George
mon said:OK LOOKS LIKE NO ONE WANTS TO START A NEW THREAD SO I GUESS I WILL
WE HAD A FEW WINNERS LAST NIGHT SO WEDNESDAY IS 2 MILLION
I LIKE 2 TO SHOW UP
LDs
Beaker:
I'm watching for LDs more and more because of you, Peter, Dennis. We had a 5 last time. Most of the time, there is at least a pair of LDs which makes total sense to me. I'm adding an LD test to my criteria when checking the validity of a set from now on. You guys are a great influence and I'm very glad to have found this forum for such great input and the source of some very good ideas. I'm understanding much more of what needs to be done to assemble a winning set.
Regards,
George
Beaker:
I'm watching for LDs more and more because of you, Peter, Dennis. We had a 5 last time. Most of the time, there is at least a pair of LDs which makes total sense to me. I'm adding an LD test to my criteria when checking the validity of a set from now on. You guys are a great influence and I'm very glad to have found this forum for such great input and the source of some very good ideas. I'm understanding much more of what needs to be done to assemble a winning set.
Regards,
George
Beaker said:See alot of LD 7 and 8 for this one
This 2 decade miss can run but it can't hide
Beaker
Member
Re: LDs
1) LD's is a given - each ticket needs at least 1 of them
2) repeaters - got to have at least 1 from the last draw
3) consecutives - must have in each ticket
4) at least 1 decade missing.
You incorporate those and you'll win more.
Last one LD 5 was a given - I played the 5-45 hoping to hit - too bad for me.
Often when I pick numbers I always look at LD's because that could be the gem.
For example 38 is high on my list for this one. I'm looking to see where 8-18-28-48 might lead me.
George, you need to look at 4 things to put what you have over the top.gsobier said:Beaker:
I'm watching for LDs more and more because of you, Peter, Dennis. We has 5 last time. Most of the time, there is at least a pair of LDs. I'm adding it to my criteria when checking the validity of a set from now on. You guys are a great influence and I'm very glad to have found this forum for such great input and the source of some very good ideas. I'm understanding much more of what needs to be done to assemble a winning set.
Regards,
George
1) LD's is a given - each ticket needs at least 1 of them
2) repeaters - got to have at least 1 from the last draw
3) consecutives - must have in each ticket
4) at least 1 decade missing.
You incorporate those and you'll win more.
Last one LD 5 was a given - I played the 5-45 hoping to hit - too bad for me.
Often when I pick numbers I always look at LD's because that could be the gem.
For example 38 is high on my list for this one. I'm looking to see where 8-18-28-48 might lead me.
Re: Re: LDs
Beaker:
You are SO RIGHT when we get a typical drawing! Repeaters is another item on my list. As you may have noticed, I'm now exploring the "4 and 2", "3 and 3", and "5 and 1" distribution according to my intial report. From there I've got many items of criteria which you have helped add to my list. The missing decade is also a great suggestion which is going into my new set composer.
Have you taken into concideration the composition of HOT, Warm, Cool, and COLDs in a set? I've assigned this designation and reported on the last 1,000 draws. The results show me VERY well what the cross-section of a set which would win. There are a few arrangements which are more the 50% of the time combined. How much research have you done in this area?
I got numbers in these classes:
HOT Active
HOT Dormant
HOT Inactive
Warm Active
Warm Dormant
Warm Inactive
Cool Active
Cool Dormant
Cool Inactive
COLD Active
COLD Dormant
COLD Inactive
I can look at the numbers simply as HOT, Warm, Cool, and COLD or I can also can look at them with more granularity using the subclass too. It works VERY well.
Regards,
George
Beaker:
You are SO RIGHT
when we get a typical drawing! Repeaters is another item on my list. As you may have noticed, I'm now exploring the "4 and 2", "3 and 3", and "5 and 1" distribution according to my intial report. From there I've got many items of criteria which you have helped add to my list. The missing decade is also a great suggestion which is going into my new set composer.Have you taken into concideration the composition of HOT, Warm, Cool, and COLDs in a set? I've assigned this designation and reported on the last 1,000 draws. The results show me VERY well what the cross-section of a set which would win. There are a few arrangements which are more the 50% of the time combined. How much research have you done in this area?
I got numbers in these classes:
HOT Active
HOT Dormant
HOT Inactive
Warm Active
Warm Dormant
Warm Inactive
Cool Active
Cool Dormant
Cool Inactive
COLD Active
COLD Dormant
COLD Inactive
I can look at the numbers simply as HOT, Warm, Cool, and COLD or I can also can look at them with more granularity using the subclass too. It works VERY well.
Regards,
George
Beaker said:George, you need to look at 4 things to put what you have over the top.
1) LD's is a given - each ticket needs at least 1 of them
2) repeaters - got to have at least 1 from the last draw
3) consecutives - must have in each ticket
4) at least 1 decade missing.
You incorporate those and you'll win more.
Last one LD 5 was a given - I played the 5-45 hoping to hit - too bad for me.
Often when I pick numbers I always look at LD's because that could be the gem.
For example 38 is high on my list for this one. I'm looking to see where 8-18-28-48 might lead me.
Beaker
Member
Yes George, as I have mentioned in the past, I look at hot/warm/cool/cold designations for numbers from different histories.
But, there are two steps to the process here. 1 is picking them and 2 is putting them into tickets.
I wheel them and never filter. You build the tickets with filters. Both ways can work.
But, there are two steps to the process here. 1 is picking them and 2 is putting them into tickets.
I wheel them and never filter.
You build the tickets with filters. Both ways can work. Beaker:
I'm on the right track then. I was interested to see mostly all Warm and no HOT is not the most comon but fairly likely too.
I forgot to mention consecutives which is also going into my enhanced criteria.
The more important items are used by you and I. The only thing very different in the way you and I create sets. I do create sets similar to wheeling with filtering to reject unlikely candidates and you wheel sets with DNs. Do you at least avoid a very low or high sum which could be on the rediculous when you wheel those sets of yours (you probably do but I'm just asking to "leave no stone unturned")?
Regards,
George
I'm on the right track then
. I was interested to see mostly all Warm and no HOT is not the most comon but fairly likely too.I forgot to mention consecutives which is also going into my enhanced criteria.
The more important items are used by you and I. The only thing very different in the way you and I create sets. I do create sets similar to wheeling with filtering to reject unlikely candidates and you wheel sets with DNs. Do you at least avoid a very low or high sum which could be on the rediculous when you wheel those sets of yours (you probably do but I'm just asking to "leave no stone unturned")?
Regards,
George
Beaker said:Yes George, as I have mentioned in the past, I look at hot/warm/cool/cold designations for numbers from different histories.
But, there are two steps to the process here. 1 is picking them and 2 is putting them into tickets.
I wheel them and never filter.
Re: BEST Bet
Yes I know there is a best bet place and I was just agreeing with Maggie on that 27~ and I was waiting for you to start that thread as you post rules there also...
Yes I know there is a best bet place and I was just agreeing with Maggie on that 27~ and I was waiting for you to start that thread as you post rules there also...
gsobier said:Sheba:
Heck, you could have started the BEST Bet thread here. I did it for you guys and then I see you posted there too.
I guess I'm the designated caretaker of "BEST Bet" (really doesn't bother me one bit, could be a respect thing, oh, is that it
Regards,
George
George, remember, when tossing out a decade you now only have 40 numbers to worry about, two decades well now we're talkin' 30 numbers, and chances are 3 will be from 1 decade, this needs very strong consideration, follow Beakers 4 steps, and soon you'll be in the money substantially.
Beaker:
Good question... ...the subClass comes from looking at the activity of the number a little more in its history... ...a COLD Active would mean it was HOT and then turned COLD. HOT Inactive says it turned HOT which was really COLD in its recent history. I'm looking deeper into this to see if it helps me decide which HOT or COLD to choose. It might work, it might not, the jury is still out on this one.
You are the one who inspired me to realize there is an Active, Dormant, abd Inactive with that (1,1,0) thing for programs you pointed out... ...(do you remember?).
Regards,
George
Good question... ...the subClass comes from looking at the activity of the number a little more in its history... ...a COLD Active would mean it was HOT and then turned COLD. HOT Inactive says it turned HOT which was really COLD in its recent history. I'm looking deeper into this to see if it helps me decide which HOT or COLD to choose. It might work, it might not, the jury is still out on this one.
You are the one who inspired me to realize there is an Active, Dormant, abd Inactive with that (1,1,0) thing for programs you pointed out
... ...(do you remember?).Regards,
George
Beaker said: