Another question for Goswinus

RattleSnake

Member
Hi Goswinus, I'm just registered although I've been lurking on these boards for years. You seem to know your stuff. Anyways my question is this is there a program (Lottopro doesn't seem to have this option) that you can go through the 6/49 draws and display all the combinations and frequency that have been able to get 4/6? Even better if you can...paste the results here. It would be greatly appreciated!!!

Goswinus

Member
Hi RattleSnake,

Just to get a clear thought of what this program should do:

Process all 6 number combinations, running them against the history of 6/49 lotto.
For each of these combinations, check how many times it has hit 4/6.

Output should be:
- the combination
- number of 4/6 hits

Sorted by number of hits (highest first).

Right?

RattleSnake

Member
Right

Exactly, Does such a program exist?

Goswinus

Member
RattleSnake,

To the best of my knowledge, such a program does not exist.
Perhaps I should say "did"

The trouble with such a program is memory.
The program should store all combinations and the results if a hit of 4 (or more) occurs.

Due to the enormous number of combinations, the program would have to limit itself to a random sample of combinations.

Furthermore, the output is a huge list containing all passed sets, with frequencies going from x down to 1, where the x-part probably has the fewest number of combinations and the 1 part has lots.

Since a lot of combinations will have the same frequency, the program should sort the output based on the distance in history.
The theory here is: the longer the distance, the more over due...

I had a quick and dirty shot at it.

Here's (part of) the output of a run over 10,000 randomly picked combinations of 6 numbers between 1 and 49:

9; 0132; 09 19 27 28 38 46
8; 0557; 06 16 20 30 31 43
8; 0331; 22 31 32 38 39 46
8; 0095; 01 03 13 19 27 32
8; 0077; 04 07 09 22 25 42
8; 0040; 04 06 20 26 35 46
8; 0012; 27 38 44 46 47 49
8; 0004; 09 28 31 36 40 46
7; 0924; 04 10 32 39 43 45
7; 0529; 16 19 20 25 36 45
7; 0447; 02 13 27 38 44 47
7; 0445; 07 18 21 32 37 42
7; 0361; 19 24 34 36 41 42
7; 0245; 02 27 41 44 46 47
7; 0168; 01 05 10 19 27 45
7; 0136; 21 22 23 27 43 45
7; 0135; 23 28 29 38 39 45
7; 0124; 07 09 17 19 28 29
7; 0122; 01 03 23 33 35 47
7; 0108; 02 03 06 34 42 44
7; 0088; 01 06 22 33 44 49
7; 0076; 03 05 08 23 47 48
7; 0046; 01 06 08 18 19 31
7; 0037; 06 17 18 28 44 47
7; 0022; 04 12 16 25 44 45
7; 0021; 12 14 20 27 40 43
6; 1355; 01 34 41 42 44 46
6; 1223; 02 05 07 37 38 40
6; 1058; 15 16 26 29 34 42
6; 1012; 01 03 05 14 25 40
6; 0973; 03 07 15 17 31 47
6; 0902; 07 21 28 34 39 47
6; 0816; 04 05 10 35 42 45
6; 0797; 06 15 17 20 22 24
6; 0771; 05 21 31 33 34 43

There are 3 columns in the output:
- number of times the hit occured
- distance of last hit
- the set itself

Note: When the program looks for "4 of 6" hits, all hits 4+0 or better will count as a "4 of 6" hit.

For example " 9; 0132; 09 19 27 28 38 46" means.
The set with balls "09 19 27 28 38 46" had 9 times 4 of 6 correct (bonus ignored), where the last occurence was 132 draws ago.

The second set had 8 hits, the last being 557 draws ago.
The third set had 8 hits too, but the last time was "only" 331 draws ago.

The list of 6 hits is actually a lot longer, the list of 5 and less was endless; way too long to post here.

For all you people thinking about sets larger than 6 (and I know you all !! ) ; yes, I can do that too.

Please keep in mind that I have to use a random sample.
Running a million random combinations of 20 numbers will take a very long time, but can be done during the night.

Hope this helps. Suggestions are more than welcome.

Dennis Bassboss

Member

I was also wondering if these best sets were changing from century to century....my guess is yes... and if these changes involved many or not so many common numbers when compared between themselves...???
What would be the best performing set if we take only the last 100 draw compare to the best performing set involving all the draws in the entire history.???

RattleSnake

Member
Thanks for your help Goswinus...I thought it would be easier than this, wow millions of combinations 4/6. I think I'm going to start a new thread on how many people have actually gotten 4 + in 6/49.
The most I've ever gotten is 3/6

Goswinus

Member
Dennis Bassboss said:

I know my fellow gamblers !

Dennis,

I can do a run on 12 number sets, but which "hit" are you looking for? If it's 4+0 or better, here are the best 99 sets on a random sample of 50000 combinations:

79; 026; 07 18 21 25 32 34 38 40 44 46 47 48
79; 001; 04 05 08 09 19 34 36 38 39 42 43 45
78; 007; 03 05 06 14 17 20 21 31 33 34 39 43
77; 014; 06 08 12 14 16 18 20 22 32 38 43 44
77; 001; 04 09 17 20 21 22 26 31 39 40 42 43
77; 001; 08 09 11 20 22 27 28 34 37 38 39 43
76; 034; 01 09 11 19 20 22 27 31 34 40 42 43
76; 021; 02 10 14 20 27 31 37 40 42 43 44 47
75; 111; 02 10 12 23 27 31 38 40 42 45 46 47
75; 040; 04 11 12 19 20 21 27 31 39 41 43 49
75; 017; 08 10 16 17 27 28 30 32 34 41 43 44
75; 015; 01 03 05 08 15 22 31 32 37 43 44 45
75; 010; 07 14 18 21 25 27 32 34 37 38 42 47
75; 010; 04 12 17 18 20 22 31 32 36 39 43 48
75; 010; 06 20 27 32 34 36 37 39 41 43 44 47
75; 008; 01 02 03 06 12 19 30 34 36 44 45 47
75; 006; 11 12 16 23 30 31 33 38 43 44 46 49
75; 001; 01 03 04 08 13 23 26 31 34 43 46 47
75; 000; 03 08 13 18 20 28 31 34 36 40 41 43
74; 073; 07 15 19 21 23 26 31 32 38 45 46 47
74; 045; 10 16 17 19 20 25 28 31 39 41 42 45
74; 023; 10 16 18 20 21 25 26 27 31 43 44 46
74; 017; 10 17 20 21 26 27 34 39 43 44 46 47
74; 017; 07 11 16 17 26 30 34 36 37 38 41 43
74; 007; 01 06 07 14 16 18 25 31 34 38 43 44
74; 005; 01 10 26 27 32 37 38 40 42 44 46 47
74; 003; 01 02 04 13 14 21 27 31 41 44 46 47
74; 003; 01 08 13 14 20 32 34 36 42 43 44 49
73; 121; 05 08 12 27 33 34 38 39 40 41 43 49
73; 065; 09 11 12 19 20 21 25 27 31 40 42 43
73; 045; 17 19 20 22 28 29 30 31 35 42 43 44
73; 045; 11 17 19 20 23 25 27 32 39 41 42 45
73; 021; 10 14 19 20 25 31 34 40 42 43 44 47
73; 017; 10 14 17 20 21 26 34 35 40 41 42 43
73; 015; 03 05 16 18 20 27 29 30 40 43 44 45
73; 015; 04 09 17 29 32 36 38 39 40 43 44 45
73; 010; 01 07 16 18 19 27 31 32 35 36 39 48
73; 007; 01 06 20 21 25 26 27 34 41 43 46 47
73; 007; 01 02 03 05 06 08 09 31 33 34 40 44
73; 006; 03 07 10 15 21 23 27 34 38 46 47 49
73; 006; 11 15 23 25 28 30 32 33 34 43 44 49
73; 005; 08 10 19 29 30 31 34 37 41 43 47 49
73; 000; 07 11 12 19 28 32 34 36 38 39 45 47
73; 000; 01 12 14 20 27 31 33 34 40 42 44 49
72; 044; 01 19 20 27 28 34 35 37 38 42 45 47
72; 040; 04 05 19 20 27 30 31 33 34 45 46 48
72; 037; 07 08 13 18 26 34 37 39 41 44 46 47
72; 027; 04 05 08 20 21 27 29 30 31 32 43 45
72; 027; 01 04 15 19 21 27 34 35 39 40 42 45
72; 018; 02 08 09 13 14 17 27 31 34 38 40 44
72; 015; 03 05 06 11 14 20 26 27 30 40 43 44
72; 011; 03 09 12 19 21 26 32 35 36 37 46 48
72; 010; 01 05 09 13 18 20 22 27 34 37 40 42
72; 008; 08 12 21 23 24 25 29 40 42 43 46 47
72; 005; 01 09 12 16 20 22 30 31 33 43 44 49
72; 004; 02 07 09 18 21 27 31 37 40 44 46 47
72; 004; 04 05 09 11 19 21 27 33 34 36 40 45
72; 003; 01 04 05 14 17 18 20 31 33 34 44 48
72; 001; 04 08 13 16 26 27 30 39 40 43 44 45
71; 075; 05 08 12 19 21 32 33 34 39 43 45 49
71; 062; 08 10 16 18 20 22 25 36 38 39 42 43
71; 062; 01 12 19 22 26 32 38 40 42 43 44 47
71; 051; 01 03 15 19 22 25 27 40 42 44 45 47
71; 050; 02 03 07 14 18 21 23 25 33 34 41 47
71; 046; 01 08 12 20 27 29 30 31 34 37 39 43
71; 045; 03 06 16 18 19 20 21 25 31 32 35 47
71; 043; 03 05 06 09 10 12 30 32 34 35 41 43
71; 042; 09 11 17 21 25 34 36 38 42 43 45 47
71; 031; 01 02 03 05 06 12 14 15 16 31 44 49
71; 028; 03 16 18 19 25 31 32 34 40 43 45 46
71; 024; 01 03 05 06 11 13 27 31 40 46 47 49
71; 023; 01 03 07 13 17 18 20 23 27 31 33 49
71; 022; 06 07 12 16 20 32 34 38 42 43 44 45
71; 022; 12 16 18 21 25 27 28 31 38 44 45 47
71; 022; 01 04 05 23 30 31 32 33 38 40 44 45
71; 022; 04 16 18 20 23 25 27 30 38 39 42 45
71; 021; 01 14 20 21 23 25 28 34 39 42 43 47
71; 020; 01 17 19 20 24 31 32 35 38 40 42 47
71; 020; 01 02 16 17 19 27 29 31 35 42 45 47
71; 013; 03 04 05 11 16 20 26 29 31 41 43 46
71; 012; 02 07 08 11 15 25 27 31 34 38 46 47
71; 010; 02 09 16 18 19 20 27 32 34 39 43 47
71; 010; 08 10 16 18 20 26 27 32 33 39 41 43
71; 010; 07 09 15 16 17 20 21 32 34 36 38 47
71; 009; 02 07 10 12 22 24 31 32 36 39 46 49
71; 008; 03 12 17 20 30 31 38 39 40 43 44 47
71; 008; 02 08 12 14 27 35 40 41 44 45 46 47
71; 006; 06 13 20 23 26 27 35 38 39 44 46 47
71; 005; 10 12 23 27 30 31 33 37 39 41 43 44
71; 004; 08 09 17 21 22 28 29 32 38 40 46 47
71; 004; 03 04 09 21 28 29 31 36 40 46 47 48
71; 003; 01 02 04 05 10 11 14 25 30 36 42 44
71; 003; 01 04 20 23 27 31 33 35 41 46 47 48
71; 002; 09 13 15 22 31 32 38 40 42 43 45 47
71; 001; 04 07 15 16 17 18 20 23 26 34 36 43
71; 001; 02 04 05 07 09 17 21 32 33 34 43 46
71; 001; 06 08 12 14 16 20 26 34 42 43 44 49
71; 000; 07 08 11 18 28 30 31 33 34 36 43 49
71; 000; 01 12 20 27 29 31 34 36 39 41 43 49

Back to your question(s). The combinations will change while draws are added, but very slowly.
I think this type of tests is only valid on a big number of draws; the more the better, but I think 250 draws is the minimum to find repeating sets and maybe even 250 is way too low.
That's the advantage of running on 6/49; the history is nice and big!

I thing RattleSnake's idea was pretty good! It's another way of looking at "best performing sets".

First of all: this has a more direct opportunity of comparing sets.

Second and probably best side-effect: it's no law that the set with most hits will hit (yet) again, it's probably better to pick a lower number, expecting the number of hits to level out. This type of overview gives you that possibility.

For example: Take a look at the set that has hit 76 times and came out 34 draws ago... It's a nice candidate.

Dennis Bassboss

Member
Thank you my friend....somehow I have a deep...deep..interest for that one....
73; 121; 05 08 12 27 33 34 38 39 40 41 43 49

Going back to your answer what I was wondering was if some common numbers would comeback from best set to best set (lets say 250 or even 400 if you want) ....
If so I might considers including that phenomenom into the announced theory.....especially with repeating consecutives....

Thanks again!

GillesD

Member
Combinations and frequency

Combinations of numbers are an interesting aspect of analysis and I have looked at a few possibilities.

For 2 number combinations (from 1-2 to 48-49), all 1176 possible combinatins have come out (not very surprising) with numbers 20 and 43 coming out the most often (50 times) while the numbers 13 and 25 have come out only 10 times together.

For 3 number combinations (from 1-2-3 to to 47-48-49), there are 18,424 possibilities. There are still 2325 combinations that have yet to come out. One combination (38-43-45) has come out 10 times and 10 other 3 number combinations have come out 9 times.

For 5 number combinatins, there are 1,906,884 possibilities, and only 11,449 of them (0.60%) have come out. There are 35 combinations of 5 numbers (starting with 1-3-19-32-47) that have come out twice.

For 6 number combinations, after 1914 draws, there has been no repeat for the same 6 winning numbers (as expected) but I will not say: "It wil not happen in the near future". May be the next draw or in 100 years.

I know, I forgot the 4 number combinations. I think I have found a way to calculate this without overloading my computer memory or taking very long to calculate. I will let you know when I get the results.

Member
CN 6/49 dbase accuracy

I have a favour to ask...
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Dennis Bassboss
Thank you my friend....somehow I have a deep...deep..interest for that one....
73; 121; 05 08 12 27 33 34 38 39 40 41 43 49
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Knowing how important it is to have an absolutely accurate history I spent some time and effort rebuilding my 6/49 dbase using the file from BCLC.com, I think I finally may have it right. What I'd like to know is if my nrs match yours. Here is the output from my prog to end of draw 1914 for the above set:

hits; nr of draws; last draw to hit
5+; 1; 1282
5; 5; 1718
4; 73; 1793
3; 301; 1913
- most recent draws to hit at least 3; 1913,1908, 1906, 1899.(corrected)
I can see that 4 hit stats coincide with Goswinus', so that's a good sign.
If anyone has the time, I would appreciate the help

Last edited:

Goswinus

Member
Brad, here's what I have of this set:

05 08 12 27 33 34 38 39 40 41 43 49
0+0 : 219 (F9 - A23 = -14 ***)
0+1 : 086 (F23 - A20 = 3)
1+0 : 499 (F4 - A2 = 2)
1+1 : 195 (F10 - A5 = 5)
2+0 : 459 (F5 - A0 = 5)
2+1 : 155 (F13 - A7 = 6)
3+0 : 177 (F11 - A1 = 10)
3+1 : 051 (F38 - A39 = -1 ***)
4+0 : 056 (F35 - A121 = -86 ***)
4+1 : 011 (F174 - A467 = -293 ***)
5+0 : 005 (F383 - A196 = 187)
5+1 : 001 (F1914 - A632 = 1282)
6+0 : 000
6+1 : 000

You have 73 times a hit-4, but I suppose it's 4+0 or better and not just limited to 4+0 and 4+1.
In that case, I have the same results (56+11+5+1 = 73).

Based on this set, I would say your data is accurate.

Goswinus

Member
Re: Combinations and frequency

GillesD said:
... calculate this without overloading my computer memory or taking very long to calculate...

GillesD,
I don't want to be rude, but my program does this in 8 seconds:

Out of the 211,876 possible combinations, 26,833 different 4 number sets have come out (~12.66%)

2 of them (10-30-37-44 and 3-19-32-47) came out 4 times.
70 sets came out 3 times.
1,731 came out twice.
The remaining 25,030 sets came out only once.

Hope this helps.

Member
Goswinus,

thanks a bunch !! You're right about the 4 and 4+ hits, though the bonus in this case does not pay extra, that only applies to 5+, but you probably knew that already.
Again, your input is really appreciated
Cheers

peter

Member
Dennis Bassboss said:

I was also wondering if these best sets were changing from century to century....my guess is yes... and if these changes involved many or not so many common numbers when compared between themselves...???
What would be the best performing set if we take only the last 100 draw compare to the best performing set involving all the draws in the entire history.???
Dennis, good question, but I would have to ask if the best set, in the last 100 draws, why would this be the best set in the next hundred.
I would like to see what was the best set for EACH hundred, and how does the next hundred shape up to previous 100 draws, p.s.... I like the best overall performing set, perhaps Goswinus you could post it again.

Goswinus

Member
peter said:

Dennis, good question, but I would have to ask if the best set, in the last 100 draws, why would this be the best set in the next hundred
...

I absolutely agree with you Peter; but if we can't look at the past what else are we basing our predictions on?

peter said:
...
I would like to see what was the best set for EACH hundred, and how does the next hundred shape up to previous 100 draws
...

I tried out this suggestion but went with 200 draws because I don't think 100 draws is enough to spot this type of trend:
- 3 blocks of 200 draws each
- find the best 200 sets 12/4 in a random sample of 500,000
- find common sets in the 3 results.

Result so far ?

I'll try out some variations (more blocks, different size, etc) and keep you (all) posted.

Dennis Bassboss

Member
peter said:

Dennis, good question, but I would have to ask if the best set, in the last 100 draws, why would this be the best set in the next hundred.
I would like to see what was the best set for EACH hundred, and how does the next hundred shape up to previous 100 draws, p.s.... I like the best overall performing set, perhaps Goswinus you could post it again.
Peter I have never said that it would be the same numbers in the following centuries but considers this....
Maybe only part of it Peter...and from there on a few of these could act as DN in many draws only alternating some of the others numbers....one might even try and play a 3 DN wheel ....all kind of ideas bursting from my head.....I would really like to see the best performing set from century to century and be able to compare them all....or if its not possible ..the best performing sets from each slices of 300 draws or more...I'm sure we would end up with a best pair and triple from these best performing sets!

In the long run with many more draws we might even be able to apply to the best performing sets the announced theory...catch my drift...