Any New Filters Anyone?

[PAB]

Hello Fellow JACKPOT Chasers,

Our Main Goal in Playing the Lotto is to Win that Ever Elusive JACKPOT, a Dream that May, But Probably Not ( Especially as the Odds are Stacked Against us ), come True. As Long as we have Fun Along the Way, it Makes Our Losses a Little Bit Easier to Swallow.
We Probably All have Databases ( I Use Excel ) Containing Past Results, and Probably Create Our Playable Combinations After the Application of Filters ( Eliminating Combinations that are a Percentage Or Far Outside the Norm ).
This Board Contains Numerous Threads of the Main Filters that are Generally Accepted and Widely Used. I was Wondering if there are Any Other Filters, Either Home Grown, OR Variations of the Generally Accepted Ones that Lotto Players here Use, Or Perhaps you have an Idea for a New One in Mind. You Never Know, we May come up with Something New that is Profitable AND gives us a Slight Edge.
I Just thought I would Put this Out for Discussion.

All the Best.
PAB

 

[trilby]

Hi PAB,

I note your call for expressions of interest on filters. Just wondered if you had looked at the the Lotto Architect software and the filter offerings in that program. Quite frankly if you are into filtering and not using this program you are all but wasting your time. The program cuts and slices the data into any size bits you want. I list some of the filters below and these can then be used against various algoritms where the assessments can be for -

Values out of bounds
values not found
values most found
delay mode
expectation mode

and some of the filters -

SUM
SUM ODD/EVEN Patterns
Mass
First Digit
Last Digit
Overall Digits
Difference
Consecutive
Numbers Position
Pattern ODD/EVEN
Linear Symetry
In/Out
Middle Transverse/out
Horizontal Overlap
Vertical overlap
Overall Rows
Overall Columns
Common Appearance
Congruence (times 7)
And then most of the above can be applied in counter mode.

And as well as the above there is another filter facility known as Number Groups where any pattern can be constructed to perform rejection.

In all more than 500 combinations.

This program has real filter grunt.

cheers

trilby

 

[kosteczki]

something I was looking into was filtering out any combination that has had all 6 numbers previously picked based on all, or as many of the 649's out there. and also filtering out any 5 number combinations previously played as well.

also any combination that contains more than 2 numbers that where picked in the previous draw or more than 2 that where picked the draw before.

 

[W Kaenzig]

filters

Sounds like things are a little complicated here. I am familiar with some of these filters, but not all. How about "phantom numbers"?
Heard of that one? W

 

[ShytKicker]

I recently got sucked into lotteries, and I'm trying to learn things. I have a question, howcome people don't want to use same numbers that were picked from drawings long ago? The chances are equally the same whether you use the same numbers or don't use the same numbers, since drawings are 100% random.

 

[W Kaenzig]

same nrs?

Since the odds are 1 in 13,983,816 why should one use the same nrs drawn before? W

 

[W Kaenzig]

position

The 6 nrs are random. But, positions are not. There are certain restrictions by position. W

 

[ShytKicker]

Re: same nrs?

Since the odds are 1 in 13,983,816 why should one use the same nrs drawn before? W

Yes but see, the same odds apply to ANY other 6 numbers. So it doesn't matter if the numbers were drawn before, since the same numbers can be drawn again, it is 100% random. The day before has nothing to do with the day today. It is just psychological that we think that are odds are less just because the numbers have been drawn before. Yes, it would be very unusual and extreme luck to get same numbers drawn two days in a row, but it is exactly the same odds as drawing any other numbers. Think about it.

I don't understand the positions, can you explain that?

 

[W Kaenzig]

If that's what you feel, go for it..choose 6 nrs which already occurred.
Even though all 6 numbers drawn from a ball machine are random, the positions of those numbers occur on a % basis. This is (1) because it is a game of sequential possiblilities. Therefore, each number can occur the same amount of times, as will any combination. However, some will occur more likely in certain positions moreso than others. Each has their unique quanlities. These quantities can be calculated. I've already in a previous post provided quantities for the lowest position. W

 

[ShytKicker]

I am new to lottery, and I'm having a hard time understanding the positioning you are explaining. A few things in general about lottery, in the ball machine, are any of the numbers repeated? For example, if my lotto has numbers 1-49, do any of these occur more than once while others may be occuring only once? Take 5 has 1 machine that holds the balls, I'm interested to know how this machine works and how it picks out the numbers. And if the machine does hold more than 1 ball per number, what is it based on? What percentages and what statistics? Explain abit to me, thx.

 

[W Kaenzig]

If all numbers are in 1 ball machine. There are only 49 balls, each labeled with a number. Therefore, no repetion can occur. In many pik 3 or pik 4 games there can occur repetion as each machine has 10 numbers, 0-9. They draw 1 ball from each machine. Hence, repetion. W

 

[ShytKicker]

I see, so my initial guess was correct. You said:

Even though all 6 numbers drawn from a ball machine are random, the positions of those numbers occur on a % basis.

Now, lets say the lotto machine picks numbers: 1-7-14-22-23-35. How is the second position for #7 calculated on a % basis? How is it even possible for it to be on a % basis, if all the numbers are just floating around in teh ball machine and then 1 is picked at random. I am missing something, help me learn. Thanks.

 

[W Kaenzig]

position

#7 can occur as lowest nr 850,668 times, as the 2nd 671,580 times, as the 3rd nr 172,200 times, as the 4th nr 17,220 times, as the 5th 630 times, and as the highest only 6 times. Add 'em up ---1,712,304.
As a % of the 2nd position, #7 has a 4.80255% of occuring. W

 

[ShytKicker]

Now I am starting to understand this, since on each draw there is 1 less ball in the machine, the chances are higher. So now the question is, what numbers do you pick, and what type of statistics do you rely on?

 

[ShytKicker]

By the way, you may want to read this: http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/56125.html I agree with the person replying.

Therefore, it is not surprising that no number has been repeated. For instance,
let's say that there have been 156 previous drawings (one per week for three
years). The odds of a number being drawn on the next drawing that has
already been used are 150/69090840. That is really small. Their method
is probably perfectly random: it just seems as if they don't allow repeats
because it hasn't happened yet. Also, even if they didn't allow repeats, after
1746 years there would still be 69,000,000 numbers left to choose from
and that would make hardly any difference to the odds.

The whole theory on not using past winning numbers or numbers from the last drawing is incorrect, and a grand waste of time. It is just the fact that it hasn't occured because of the number of combinations out there. And for some reason, people don't understand this simple fact.

 

[Brad]

getting back to basic filtering for a bit ...

There are many filters one can use. So many that if one looks at the potential number of filter combinations there can be almost as many (or maybe more?) than the actual 14M number combinations (in a 6/49)

Where I'm headed with this, I guess, is that unless one uses the same filters all the time without fail, it doesn't really make the predicting task any easier ... the diff being that instead of number combos, we're trying to predict filter combos making it a filter-lotto rather than a number-lotto

Now, even if we come up with the filters that we think work the best and stick to them religiously ... are they not random combinations just like numbers? Have we come a full circle on this?

Just a thought ...

 

[W Kaenzig]

I clearly agree with the quote. I don't know what game the quote was about, but I do agree with it.
I'll go back now and click on the site. W

 

[W Kaenzig]

filters

Yes, I've found that too many filterings can be very confusing. Find a few and stay with it. Me? I prefer to minimize repetition by creating a master list for a particular (large) combo. There will many repetitions of smaller combos. Then apply a few filters between draws. That's the part which I am currently working on. ---Creating a master list that I can filter each time. By filtering afterward, one will reduce some of the smaller combo repetitions, but still have enough left. W

 

[trilby]

Me'thinks that it is possible to take a much to rigorous or disciplinary approach to filtering. First if you are of the opinion that any drawn set of numbers is totally independant of any other drawn set of numbers (and they are in reality) then you will not use any filtering at all. Any filter no matter what it's basis for cleansing will remove some tickets that have a potential to be drawn at the next draw. Thus at the next draw it is quite possible that 1,2,3,4,5,6 or 44,45,46,47,48,49 or 2,4,6,8,10,12 or 1,3,5,7,9,11 will come out, as will the same numbers that were drawn last week. However, will they? If you have a program capable of analysing past draws you will find that full draw replication is an extremely rare event thus the odds of it occurring at the next draw are quite remote. Therefore in my opinion feel safe in rejecting numbers from your wheel set for previous full number sets or even upto where 4 numbers equate to a previous draw. If you want to be aggressive about it reject for three matches. It is simply a choice. And if it doesn't work this time there is always next week (or next draw).

If your filters are statistically based or prepared then it is simply all about odds. If your filters are history based then there can be characteristics of the draw that determines what is eliminated in filtering. What is best? Who knows. In general there are millions of combinations and none of us will live long enough to prove what is best. Thus choose an approach that suits you and stick to it but preferably choose an approach that has some logicality and repeatable basis to it. And get a good program (and a very good program will make it easy) to do the work for you.

 

[W Kaenzig]

Logical thoughts. I use to use the past 3 draws, but went to 4 draws. It seems to work better for me. I can then filter some repetition, and combining that with my %'s gets me (I think) closer, and closer. But, except for the %'s, my filtering may not be static. I have provided in a previous post, for those interested, the quantities that can occur in the first (lowest) position.
In my next post I've provide quantities for the 2nd and 3rd positions. W