I came across an interesting thing about picking lotto numbers extracted from a newsletter. Because HTML formatting is a problem here, I have posted it at another forum for clear reading.

You may find this idea below (I will post it a little later due to format problems on this site.

Hope you like it. If you have a different or a more innovative idea, please do not hesitate to share it!

Here's one for you all who play Pick-5. I got this extract from a lotto newsletter. Hope you like it. Please share more ideas if you improvize on this!

When you stand in the Lottery shop it is always not easy to make a quick decision on what to play. Here are ideas on how to come up with some decent numbers quick.

Let's take for example 5/39 California Fantasy 5: 6/7/2003 numbers were 08-09-32-36-39

Beaker, something weird is going on here ... on the Home page I saw you as having posted at 10:40 PST (same time as my post) but the post is NOT there??

DreamLotto, this analysis is nothing new - called decade elimination - and is very common in many lottos. Also, 7x7 elimination.

Here in Canada, for our 6/49 lotto a rough rule of thumb is , 6 out of 10 draws has 1 decade missing, 3 out of 10 has at least 2 decades missing and 1 out of 10 has all decades in the picks.

I'm certain if you wait a bit, someone will post the actual decade miss stats here.

We have extended this to determine what numbers announce the decades which will miss.

I routinely look at decade-announcers. Actually, if you look at delta analysis, very often you can eliminate 20 or more numbers - a decade plus numbers +/-

what newsletter is this? Could you post a link to it? Or if it has a forum on the site, then just name the newsletter & I'll google it. thanks.

I think this system is not much better than a RNG. What's the mathematical proof/logic of WHY this works? Adjacent & repeat #s hit quite frequently & this system eliminates those completely. This system will only win when you have a winning line that has ZERO adjacents and ZERO repeats. & That is more rare than having them hit.

what newsletter is this? Could you post a link to it? Or if it has a forum on the site, then just name the newsletter & I'll google it. thanks.

I think this system is not much better than a RNG. What's the mathematical proof/logic of WHY this works? Adjacent & repeat #s hit quite frequently & this system eliminates those completely. This system will only win when you have a winning line that has ZERO adjacents and ZERO repeats. & That is more rare than having them hit.

- 14.3% of the draws had numbers in 5 decades (14.2%):
- 53.3% of the draws had numbers in 4 decades (53.3%):
- 29.8% of the draws had numbers in 3 decades (30.1%):
- 2.9% of the draws had numbers in 2 decades (2.4%):
- 0.0% of the draws had numbers in 1 decade (0.0% but not 0).

The values in brackets at the end are the theorical values based on all 13,983,816 combinations. Not much difference in all cases.

83.1% is at least 1 decade missing (putting 3 and 4 together). That is pretty good for me. Strategy is so very important.

If you want to play all decades and spread yourself too thin and then its your problem, ill advised too. There are exceptions but the odds against you does increase.

Regards,
George

GillesD said:

Here is the data Beaker was refering to earlier:

For Lotto 6/49 after 2060 draws:

- 14.3% of the draws had numbers in 5 decades (14.2%):
- 53.3% of the draws had numbers in 4 decades (53.3%):
- 29.8% of the draws had numbers in 3 decades (30.1%):
- 2.9% of the draws had numbers in 2 decades (2.4%):
- 0.0% of the draws had numbers in 1 decade (0.0% but not 0).

The values in brackets at the end are the theorical values based on all 13,983,816 combinations. Not much difference in all cases.

83.1% is at least 1 decade missing (putting 3 and 4 together). That is pretty good for me. Strategy is so very important.

If you want to play all decades and spread yourself too thin and then its your problem, ill advised too. There are exceptions but the odds against you does increase.