Copied systems.

[SRM]

There is nothing worse than seeing someone producing a copied system, proclaiming it as thier work - nothing worse that is, than using it to sell a book to try to make money from the findings of others.

I refer to 49,6,3,6 <= 163.

I fully understand that this version of 49,6,3,6 <= 163 contains a slightly better covering which is used to distract from the fact that the original 49,6,3,6 system was found by Dragan Stoljijkovic & Rade Belic in 2000.

I also understand that any of the improvements made will be within the 27,6,4,3 <= 86 part of the system.

The difficulty came from producing the original 163 line system, tweaking it a bit - was perhaps the easy part.
A true improvement would be making 49,6,3,6 <= 162 or better.

Rgds,
SRM.

 

[stefan]

Can anyone do better ?

Here's the official wheeling challenge....

http://lottery.merseyworld.com/Wheel/



# Tickets - Name - Combs covered
----------------------------------------------------------------------
# 163 Stefan Vandevelde - 3,043 (16.5%) - Tuesday 29th March 2005
# 163 gARY - 3,040 (16.5%)
# 163 gARY - 3,023 (16.4%)
# 163 Dragan Stojiljkovic and Rade Belic - 3,007 (16.3%)
# 164 Dragan Stojiljkovic and Rade Belic
# 165 Salvatore Minacapelli
# 167 Dragan Stojiljkovic and Rade Belic
# 168 Uenal Mutlu
# 174 Mat Newman

 

[SRM]

Stefan,
these are fantasic achievements congratulations - perhaps you would like to entertain me more by describing just how your 163 improvements were made - but - from Dragans system I guess.
A question for you? Have you actually ever produced a unique / worthwhile contibution to the t=m or t<>m tables in your life?. My records show not.
Perhaps contributions to your books or website is more profitable for you?
Your name escapes me, as perhaps your abilities do.
It is very sad that someone copies the works of Dragan & Rade for profit.
Only realy stupid people never learn - I reserve judgement.

Rgds,

S

 

[stefan]

Hi SRM,

I do agree with you that it is very sad that someone copies the works of Dragan & Rade for profit. I don't think I ever did, quite the contrary. I have expressed my feelings about split wheels many times on my website : http://www.lottotrix.com . I don't like split wheels because they are a farce. However, I reserve the right to publish any improved wheel on a free site like Richard's - http://lottery.merseyworld.com/Wheel/ - and I am sure that Richard K. Lloyd will welcome and publish your wheel if it's any better. I also reserve the right to write a book about sequential wheels because they proved to be much better than split wheels.

Designing a split wheel -like C(42,6,3,6) - is nothing more than a mathematical challenge. Anybody knows that Dragan Stojiljkovic and Rade Belic were the first who managed to keep their design below 164 lines of 6 numbers : 163 lines. That was (is) a great achievement from a mathematical point of view. But a wheel is more than just the round numbers (or guarantee). A wheel goes way beyond that, and any improvement is an improvement. Don't you agree?

BTW, about the 22,6,3,3 part of the split wheel,... Did Rade and Dragan invented that one ? I don't think so (correct me if I am wrong). Did they use it for their design ? Yes, of course, why wouldn't they do that. Does that make them thiefs ?

To conclude this reply...
My methods... I always start with a spreadsheet. Once I have a design, I look for improvements with a software program I wrote myself. Occasionaly, I engage covermaster as well.

Finally
This website (lotto649.ws) was once a great forum. It still has the potential to attract enough visitors to become as big as it used to be. I can only hope you're not "one of the many alliases" that "someone we all know" uses to make trouble here (and elsewhere).

Best regards,

Stefan

 

[SRM]

Stefan,
Thanks for the reply.
So assuming 49,6,3,6 <= 161 could be achieved - would this mean another 5 years of discussions over the true ownership of the system?
I feel sorry for Rade & Dragan - great system - ownership is absolutely thiers.
Is there any part of 49,6,3,6 <= 163 that you do not understand - perhaps you would like to accept that your better covering came from the work of Rade & Dragan?
I would class the next improvement of this system to be 49,6,3,6 <= 162 or better.

Regards,

Steve Muir. - no allias.

PS: - Please remove the links to your website from this topic - it is discussion only - not intended for your adverts.

 

[SRM]

Stefan,
I have waited a week for your reply?
Sadly - no reply.
I have produced numerous systems analisys for Wilfried Fromme.
Proving that systems are copied or not copied.

Would you at any point like to add that your improvements were made from the 49-6-3-6 system of Dragan & Rade?

You do not appear to have mentioned this at your links:
http://lottery.merseyworld.cim/Wheel
http://www.lottotrix.cim

Maybe you would like to do the honorable thing and credit the original authors

Regards,
Steve Muir

 

[stefan]

Steve,
Like I clearly stated on my previous post : "Anybody knows that Dragan Stojiljkovic and Rade Belic were the first who managed to keep their design below 164 lines of 6 numbers : 163 lines."

Like I clearly stated on my previous post : that design is a "split wheel" and I don't like split wheels.

Refering to your question "Would you at any point like to add that your improvements were made from the 49-6-3-6 system of Dragan & Rade?"...

If you accept the fact that the wheel is made of 2 wheels C(22,6,3,3)+C(27,6,3,4), of which the best and perfect wheel part - C(22,6,3,3) was not the work of Dragan and/or Rade, then "yes", I 'll be happy to make you happy by saying that "my improvement on C(27,6,3,4)" is based on Rade's and Dragan's original C(27,6,3,4)

Are you happy now ? Are you completely satisfied now ? Of course not...

A recent web search learned me that you "publically" attacked Rade in the past as well.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec....t&q="Steve+Muir"+rade&rnum=1#66b6f21494dbf75b

So now it's my turn? OK then, if that's what is pleasing you... go ahead then... I won't be replying anymore.

Have fun !

Stefan

 

[SRM]

Stefan,
fine research - yes I have publically disagreed with Rade, the issue being further discussed off net - I believe I closed the topic upon resolution using the words " topic closed"
If you research even further - the origin of 22,6,3,3 will also be found.

I consider it would be pointless publishing an improved 49,6,3,6 due to the parasitic nature of people trying to make a profit from the work of others....

Regards,

Steve.