**lottoarchitect**,

I have just picked out a couple of comments from your previous posts:-

Does your first sentence not implylottoarchitect said:The lottery does not follow statistics or observable patterns in first place.

Actually, they are not completely random, lottery draws performed in a barrel have reduced randomness. I have designed a program that examines this specific issue and tries to take advantage of it. So far the results are quite promising given the wins made by the users and from my end, based on their results, I can say I have serious and strong clues that indeed lottery draws ARE NOT PURELY RANDOM (which can't be proved by any formal method however) and there is a way to extract this reduced randomness they embed so to produce even better number sets than pure luck.

**Randomness**?

Out of interest, where did you get your data from regarding Lotto draws performed in a barrel have reduced randomness?

If you could elaborate a bit more please on how you extract this reduced randomness they embed so as to produce even better number sets than pure luck that will be interesting.

lottoarchitect said:Actually I expect over the very very long run of lotto draws these to behave statistically as pure random events i.e. eventually all the combinations will be drawn approximatelly an equal amount of times. Of course we'll need way more test events than the total possible combinations of our lotto game to verify the pure randomness of this particular experiment but I hope we agree on that aspect, that we expect overall the results to show pure random behavior.

In another thread, I did actually runlottoarchitect said:At some point of a very huge set of test events (draws), even these observations would occur and still this will be considered a normal purely random outcome. We can't conclude anything at the moment about the pure (or not) random nature of lotto draws simply because we don't have somehow such a huge history (multiple times the total combinations of the experiment) to evaluate.

**96,153.85**years worth of draws at two draws a week, this experiment equated to

**10,000,000**( 10 MILLION ) draws in total and calculated the results for the numbers 01-49 for the total times each of them were drawn along with their respective percentage.

The MINIMUM value for a drawn number was

**1,223,016**times.

The MAXIMUM value for a drawn number was

**1,226,040**times.

The RANGE from MINIMUM to MAXIMUM value for a drawn number was

**ONLY 3,024**.

The

**3,024**difference is miniscule in the overall concept of such a large test experiment.

All that this seemed to prove was that over a substantial period of time for that particular test was that everything leveled out to be on a virtually level par.

This thread has turned out to be very interesting.

Regards,

PAB

-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏

12:45, restate my assumptions.

(1) Mathematics is the language of nature.

(2) Everything around us can be represented and understood through numbers.

(3) If you graph the numbers of any system, patterns emerge. Therefore, there are patterns, everywhere in nature.