PSAZF said:
Hi lottoarchitect, first thanks to to your reply.
Regarding your answer
"...I find it amazing that people want to filter abbreviated wheels. As soon as you remove a single line, you ruin the guarantee of the wheel, which is the reason you use it in first place!..."
yes, I agree 100% with you! That's what I tought, that's the reason because I post my topic.
Why I posted this? I downloaded two software (Lotto Pro 2005 and Lotto Hat 2.50, both trial versions) packages and both of them, have the option to apply filters after we have the abbreviated wheels! When I found this, I started to think and my oppinion is exactly the same as your answer - ..."ruin the guarantee of the wheel".
But what about the opposite? - "first apply the Filters and after the Abbreviate Wheel"
At this 2nd option, what we need is to make our "full wheel" with the numbers we choose and then apply the Filters we want. But...
...in this stage, can we apply an abbreviated wheel? I don't think so, isn't? Or can we?
But, regarding Lotto Hat, after we choose our NN numbers and after apply the filters we want, we still have another option that is Optimize (to 2/5, 3/4, and so on). But I don't understand until now, what (how) this optimize function applies to my filtered wheel!
Only as an example (I'm talking about EuroMillions lottery - a 5/50 game):
- We choose 30 numbers (from 1 to 30). - i know, it's a test! Full wheel is 142506 lines;
- apply even/odd filters: 2/3 and 3/2 - wheel is now 95550 lines;
- make the Optimize function (3 from 5) - for 100% we have 179 lines.
Question is: Optimize is a mathmatical formula or is a logical programming matter?
------------------------------------
Where I want to arrive? What's the propose of my thinkings?
Ok, all we know, that there are hundreds of abbr wheels all over the net for us to download and use. I have lots, lots, of them here in my pc. But... I already found some for the same abbreviation (saying, for example 20 numbers, warranty 3 in 5, with MMM lines) where the MMM is different from one to another!
This is the same as saying that the abbreviated with bigger MMM lines is not perfect! And how can we have sure that the abbreviated with smaller MMM is perfect and/or not wrong!?
How can we warranty that this abbr wheels are perfect? I know - there are programs ( and I made one also, that tests for this, to see if the warranty is warranted).
-----------------
How people develop (The Perfect) abbr wheels?
Is there a math formula for this? For example, if we want an abbr whell for saying, 25 mumbers with 3/5 warranty, there's a math formula that say us the final number of lines?
As I don't have this answer, until now, the only way I can think about discover The Perfect abbr wheel, is working with the Permutation of all the lines of the full wheel, choosing a line, deleting all the other lines that differs 2 from the choosed line, and so on, and so, on, until we can not choose/delete more lines. In this stage we have the abbr wheel. But....
Who says me, that it is The Perfect? Who says me, that if I had choose my choosed lines in another sequence (permutation), the final abbr wheel I have is not better than the one before?
Understand what I mean? It's a matter that I have think long, long about!
If anyone wants to add ideias and corrections, thanks in adavnce!
Kind regards
PSAZF
(Portugal)
Ok, lets get things one at a time
->"But what about the opposite? - "first apply the Filters and after the Abbreviate Wheel"
This is not applicable because what a filter does is to filter a complete ticket according to its function. For example, the sums filter operates on the full ticket and rejects it if falls outside the accepted sums. On the other hand, wheels operate by the means of numbers. The tickets are a predefined sequence of pointers where we simply replace the pointers with our numbers. We cannot change the pointers as this ruins the wheel. So, filters and abbreviated wheels are not compatible (and this is why we cannot filter abbr. wheels anyway). However, on a full wheel you are free to perform any filtering you want. This is because a filter operates on the full ticket and each test is made against the jackpot and not the predefined guarantee of the abbr. wheel and because each ticket in the full wheel is irrelevant to any other ticket.
->"This is the same as saying that the abbreviated with bigger MMM lines is not perfect! And how can we have sure that the abbreviated with smaller MMM is perfect and/or not wrong!?"
It depends on what you look for in a wheel. Some designs target a different area which usually requires more tickets to achieve. This is the case with group-wheels, where we assign our numbers in groups and if they hit together in a group, we have the jackpot. This is not the case with a minimal abbreviated wheels. We "hope" that if our selection of numbers match the winning ones, then we also hope to have one ticket there that "by accident" contains all the winning numbers. Some thoughts of this is to re-assign the numbers in a more optimal way, so the tickets look like winning combinations as much as possible (e.g. not like 1 2 3 4 5 6 if it happen to include these numbers in your selections). I work on such a system in the next version of my program. As for the "wrong", I suspect you mean that the wheel offer the required coverage. This is simple to test using a wheel program like Covermaster that provides this analysis.
->"How people develop (The Perfect) abbr wheels?
Is there a math formula for this? For example, if we want an abbr whell for saying, 25 mumbers with 3/5 warranty, there's a math formula that say us the final number of lines?"
If you can define what is a perfect wheel, then we can discuss more on this. However, the creation of an abbr. wheel is an NP-hard problem, not approachable by a brute force method. There is no general solution that yields an optimal (minimal wheel) and finally there is not a general formula that can tell the minimum real tickets required by a wheel. There are some bound formulas but usually they indicate less than possible and rarely the exact minimum amount. The simplest formula is the one that indicates the amount of X=nCk(tot.balls,match parameter) combinations K that can be covered by a single ticket, so
minimum required tickets=X/t
This is a general bound and most of the time not match the real possible (by the means there are other specific rules that indicate a higher lowest bound), but at least provides an indication of what is possible to create.
Combinatoric designs is currently a hot area of research and many questions remain open.
->"Question is: Optimize is a mathmatical formula or is a logical programming matter?"
I had a "fight" about optimizing benefits but my opinion is that this cannot surpass the use of an open-cover wheel with the same ticket size (it definitely offers better coverage anyway by definition, besides the benefits of using the wheel). The formula is simple, remove any additional tickets that cover the same X combinations from your wheel. If you perform a search, here or in other forums (disallowed to post links here
)
you'll find arguments on the subject.
Hope these answers make the field of wheels more clear.
red0412303609 said:
Ill look up those software programs- thanks.
yeh I would like a software program that will aloow me to enter a duplicate number repetiously- if u know what I mean ie--
1 2 3 4 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 3 5 6 8 9 12 15 0 0 0
do u get my drift.
I had a program like it years ago but cant remember what it was.
Any help??????
red0412303609, what is the use of this feature??? You cannot play tickets with same numbers anyway!
cheers
lottoarchitect
