Frank
Member
This is an interesting piece of research. Excellent work.
I would just make one observation if I may. Is it not true that the outcome of this research depends on where you start from ? I presume you are counting from draw 1 and flagging up when each ball is drawn at least once and continuing until the last ball is drawn, calling that the end of the cycle and resetting your counters? If you were to start at another draw which just happenned to be in synchronism with the absence period of ball 17 between draws 435 and 508 (uk lottery) then your results list would have contained its absence (including bonus ball) of 73 draws as that would be the cycle length. I believe your actual results set would differ with every start point and be just as valid. Counting back from 1814 a far as the last cycle available would I believe be just as valid in obtaining an average cycle length. I'm not suggesting the average would be far away from what youve already discovered, its just an observation. If I had the time I'd probably cycle through each past draw as a start point (as though that was the date of inception of the lottery) thus getting a thousand or so ? of sets like the ones you've shown.
There would be a complete list of maximum absences of specific balls (each one possibly controlling the cycle length ) contained within such a set, and the average would be much more representative of the whole lottery. It may not be worth the effort as it sounds like the lower 30's is going to be the result anyway. It does beg the question can one arbitrarily choose any draw and call it the start of a cycle, and base your ponderings on that start point? Food for thought. Its just statistics.
I would just make one observation if I may. Is it not true that the outcome of this research depends on where you start from ? I presume you are counting from draw 1 and flagging up when each ball is drawn at least once and continuing until the last ball is drawn, calling that the end of the cycle and resetting your counters? If you were to start at another draw which just happenned to be in synchronism with the absence period of ball 17 between draws 435 and 508 (uk lottery) then your results list would have contained its absence (including bonus ball) of 73 draws as that would be the cycle length. I believe your actual results set would differ with every start point and be just as valid. Counting back from 1814 a far as the last cycle available would I believe be just as valid in obtaining an average cycle length. I'm not suggesting the average would be far away from what youve already discovered, its just an observation. If I had the time I'd probably cycle through each past draw as a start point (as though that was the date of inception of the lottery) thus getting a thousand or so ? of sets like the ones you've shown.
There would be a complete list of maximum absences of specific balls (each one possibly controlling the cycle length ) contained within such a set, and the average would be much more representative of the whole lottery. It may not be worth the effort as it sounds like the lower 30's is going to be the result anyway. It does beg the question can one arbitrarily choose any draw and call it the start of a cycle, and base your ponderings on that start point? Food for thought. Its just statistics.


.