Any tips for getting rid of numbers?
- Thread starter cleopatra
- Start date
~~~ rubronegro
Member
Yes. First neglect the numbers of the last draw.
Second look for the real position of the current cicle and consider at least two of the missing numbers.
Second look for the real position of the current cicle and consider at least two of the missing numbers.
rubronegro
Member
The real probability of having at least one number from a previous draw is exactly 3.89%
rubronegro
Member
In a 6/49 scheme the probability of having one number from past draw is 11.04% . If you run this figure in a BOLTZMAN'S machine at least 6 times, which is the number of balls drawn, this will result in somethinh between 3,5% and 3,9%. Various factors alter the virtual probability and the practical one. Please refer to Stochastic experiments under Monte Carlo asimulation and Boltzmann machine
rubronegro
Member
Dear Friend
I have won ten times 6/6 since 1984 up today. I lost the times I won 5 numbers which is quite impressive amount, by doing what you call a empirical method. Also I had win many times in a 15/25 system, by applying the same method. Have you heard about neural network?
I have won ten times 6/6 since 1984 up today. I lost the times I won 5 numbers which is quite impressive amount, by doing what you call a empirical method. Also I had win many times in a 15/25 system, by applying the same method. Have you heard about neural network?
Beaker
Member
Congratulations on those hitsrubronegro said:
rubronegro, the data in Canada649 does not support your probability estimation
looking at 7 numbers from the previous draw and hitting at least oneI have heard if neural nets
and have been looking into some software to implement but need to read up on them.One thing I don't understand about your method - you look at balls positionally and get a confidence interval - say 95% - how many balls do you have in each postion?? within your confidence interval?
Last edited:
Yes, and of Monte Carlo Runs, Gauss-Markov simulations and even Kalman Filters.... Although I prefer Genetic Algorithms!
Major question is, can they be succefully applied to Lottos? I hope so, but so far I haven't seen one working!
As for your winnings, say the English speaking say: talking is cheap!! Show us your numbers!!!
Tommorow there is a Canadian 6/49 draw, post some picks and let's see how you do!
E já agora, porque é que eu nunca ouvi falar de si! Um tipo que ganha 10 vezes o jackpot já teria aparecido na Globo uma serie de vezes!!!
Major question is, can they be succefully applied to Lottos? I hope so, but so far I haven't seen one working!
As for your winnings, say the English speaking say: talking is cheap!! Show us your numbers!!!
Tommorow there is a Canadian 6/49 draw, post some picks and let's see how you do!
E já agora, porque é que eu nunca ouvi falar de si! Um tipo que ganha 10 vezes o jackpot já teria aparecido na Globo uma serie de vezes!!!
rubronegro
Member
Beaker said:What lotto do you play? and have you verified these results empirically with that lotto?
Dear Friend
I have won ten times 6/6 since 1984 up today. I lost the times I won 5 numbers which is quite impressive amount, by doing what you call a empirical method. Also I had win many times in a 15/25 system, by applying the same method. Have you heard about neural network?
rubronegro
Member
thornc said:
Não sou pop star para aparecer na Globo. Para receber o prêmio não há necessidade de identificação. Se você quiser alguma dica eu posso dar mas levar ao ridículo isso eu não vou permitir.
rubronegro said:
Translations:
Mine:
"By the way, why didn't I ever heard of you. A guy that win the Lottery 10 times would have appeared on Globo a bunch of times."
His:
"I'm not a pop star to show up on Globo. To get the prize there's no need for ID. If you want some tip, I can give them to you, But I won't be rediculourized![how do you spell that!]"
[Globo is a Brazilian TV Network, I can catch in Portugal also!]
Amigo, calma... ninguem quis ofender!
Eu só quis mostrar a minha supresa para o facto! Mais nada....
Beaker
Member
I don't speak Portuguese - I assume that is what it is.Maggie said:Translation anybody?
But looking at it, no one is ridiculing anyone here.
just trying to understand a new method.He posted a tip/hint, says he's hit 6/6 10 times and when we ask questions thinks it's ridicule??
If anyone can decipher his method - please inquiring minds would like to know.
I've seen enough
rubronegro
Member
Beaker said:Congratulations on those hits
rubronegro, the data in Canada649 does not support your probability estimation
I have herard if neural nets
One thing I don't understand about your method - you look at balls positionally and get a confidence interval - say 95% - how many balls do you have in each postion?? within your confidence interval?
We don't have 7 balls. We have 6/50 balls twice and 6/60 single. Also we have 20/50 in a pool of 100 and 15/25. The confidence interval for any position is always 95%. But we have to look for the current cicle, i.e. the missing numbers until all have appeared at least one time. The Normal distribution is applied for each position and the crosscheck is the confidence interval of the sum of the numbers. The outliers some time cannot be neglected, since they are in the very extreme of the gaussian curve. To model quite close of the reality you may have a MonteCarlo method, applied at least 10% of the probability of the jackpot, lets say 1:60.000.000. 1:15.000.000 etc
rubronegro
Member
thornc said:
Basically the assumption is a time invariant model. Each draw has the same probability of the next or prior draw. But in order to reduce the number of variables, you may have to make some assumption. For each particular lotto scheme is always possible to devise a pattern that repeats cyclicaly. If you try to perform a Fourier series you can estimate the shape of various positions and eliminating those which appears to have reached the maximum frequency, you will end up with a minor universe. The routine is not complicated but it is necessary to perform a new forecast for each new draw. I have working with EXCEL and a lot of different add-ins, each one to perform an specific task.
I know is quite hard to believe my success, but the only reason I have saying that is to help anyone to be lucky. By the way lucky doesn't exist.