Dennis Bassboss
Member
And by Peter's law ...You got to consider this pair of yours of 11-31
I see some good hits for 31Dennis Bassboss said:And by Peter's law ...You got to consider this pair of yours of 11-31
Interesting observation martek I'm playing that 11 again and will be putting it with some primes - in fact all of those posted are in play.martek said:I noticed a short-term trend that seems interesting: the last 4 times 11 has hit, it has hit with at least 3 more prime numbers (including the bonus).
#2051 - 11-13-31-37 quad hits (all primes)
#2053 - 3-5-11-47 another prime quad
#2055 - 11-17-41 + 13B
#2057 - 3-11-37-41 + 5B - prime quad + prime bonus!
So that's 4/6 prime, then 4/6 again, 4/7 and finally 5/7.
The pattern has been picking up steam so to speak since drawing #2048 when 11 hit with only a single other prime (41).
The pattern could go cold when 11 hits next time, but it might be a good idea to pair the primes hard if you're picking 11 for your set, add a few other numbers and... 6/6?
Any comments?
I keep saying , gotta go back in multiples of 10.Dennis Bassboss said:Peter's theory...2050 and 2060 25-26-37-49
peter said:I keep saying , gotta go back in multiples of 10.
Not only that, but did you notice the sum in 2050 was 213, and in 2060, it was 231.
Beaker said:Interesting observation martek I'm playing that 11 again and will be putting it with some primes - in fact all of those posted are in play.
206 to be exact.gsobier said:Peter:
there have been over 200 multiples of 10 for 6/49 up to now... George
I wish you would.gsobier said:Peter:
The reason I'm asking is, I know a little bit about the tools you have. I never did look yet and I can write a simple program to report with 100% reliability dedicated for this law. Should I?
Regards,
George
peter said:I wish you would.
I think you may see more interesting results looking at 10 +/- 1 then +/-2peter said:I wish you would.
peter said:Not being a programmer George, I do not have the computer smarts that you do.
Can I back up my statement with a report, the answer is no.
I can tell you that in one file, which I call my "TENS" file, I have all of the draws separated into last digits of ten.
For example my one file has draws 1,11,21,31,41,etc.
My two file has all the draws separated like Draw 2,22,32,42,etc
Same goes for draws ending in 3,4 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 0.
I can tell you my statement is based on observation . This is where I need you, but NO>>>>> you don't have Quattro pro.
You see the picture now buddy
I have all my files separated like this my odd/even, my sum totals, consecutives, you name it.
I came up with this tens theory some time ago, and have spoken about it often on this forum, as my good friends Beaker and Dennis can attest to.
Now get with the program, and get that damn Quattro pro, and your e-mail will become full in a hurry.
Agreed with this statement as well, it has been discussed before and I do look at plus or minus 1.Beaker said:I think you may see more interesting results looking at 10 +/- 1 then +/-2
peter said:George, not if you edit your post.
I agree with that statement George, that is why, I stated that it was an obsevation, and not fact.gsobier said:Peter:
To get back to serious, backuping up a thoery or law with fact is VERY IMPORTANT or else its not worth much more than horse hocky.
Regards,
George
Not sure there are too many Lotto Laws - maybe one or twogsobier said:<snip>
To get back to serious, backuping up a thoery or law with fact is VERY IMPORTANT or else its not worth much more than horse hocky.
Regards,
George