Lottery Sorcerer trial run

chilibill

Member
Hi Folks,
I'm currently doing a 12 day trial run of Lottery Sorcerer V7 on paper. No luck so far and it doesn't have a Sum Filter which is not cool. If anyone out there is using Sorcerer with success, please let me know. Also, if anyone out there is using better software that helps you produce a good combo at least once in a while, please let me/us know that too.
chilibill
 

Icewynd

Member
I had never heard of this software, so I had a look at their site. Not sure I buy their idea that lotteries are non-random (although, to be fair, I didn't read their detailed article on the subject).

They claim that the core of the program is neural net or artificial intelligence software, so it should "learn" to do better predictions over time. Please let us know if you see that happening.

Hope it spits out a winner! :beer:
 

chilibill

Member
Sorcerer and Lottomania trial

I gave up on Sorcerer after doing most of the trial. The trial version had some limits, but I still didn't see good results at least once in a while.
I'm currently trying Lottomania, and hoping for the best.
chilibill
 

PAB

Member
Hi chilibill,

chilibill said:
I'm currently trying Lottomania, and hoping for the best.
How are you getting on with Lottomania?
I haven't tried it personally and just wondered what your thoughts and experience on it were?

Regards,
PAB
:wavey:

-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-
12:45, restate my assumptions.
Mathematics is the language of nature.
Everything around us can be represented and understood through numbers.
If you graph the numbers of any system, patterns emerge. Therefore, there are patterns everywhere in nature.
 

PAB

Member
Hi chilibill,

How's the testing going?

Regards,
PAB
:wavey:

-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-
12:45, restate my assumptions.
Mathematics is the language of nature.
Everything around us can be represented and understood through numbers.
If you graph the numbers of any system, patterns emerge. Therefore, there are patterns everywhere in nature.
 

PAB

Member
Hi chilibill,

I assume that the testing is not going well?
Are you still testing Lottomania or have you moved on to other Software?

Regards,
PAB
:wavey:

-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-
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.
 

chilibill

Member
software testing

PAB,
Sorry for the delay. As you thought , I gave up on Lottomania,maybe too soon. I'm still looking for a winner, but I'm beginning to wonder if ANY software product can give you good numbers to play. However, I'm always looking and trying them. my latest trial one is Lotto Creo Pro which was abandoned and now seems to be ressurected. It had very good reviews by users on another forum back in 2006 and caught my eye. We will see. Good luck to all of us,
chilibill
 

PAB

Member
Thanks for the reply chilibill,

chilibill said:
I'm still looking for a winner, but I'm beginning to wonder if ANY software product can give you good numbers to play.
I think that when a new Lotto first starts that everybody jumps on the bandwagon to come up with something that Lotto players would buy, mainly I think because of the conception that a computer is far better than the human brain.

When a new Lotto starts it is the intrigue that "it could be you" that hits that ever elusive Jackpot.

Initially, when a new Lotto starts each different software developer and programmer has their own individual perspective of what filters and statistics to include giving you that slight edge above the rest. But, as you know, the Lotto is a purely random event and that every combination has as much chance as being drawn as any other. There is however, a guaranteed way to gain a better chance of winning, and that is, buy MORE tickets.

As Lotto's have been running for some time now, it appears that all the software has become much of a muchness. By this I mean that the filters and statistics that are included in most Lotto software are the same, and it is just the graphical appearance and structure that differs.

I personally have never purchased or used Lotto software, I setup my own DataBase with my own filters and statistics whether it is using Excel formulas or VBA, and as you would have probably read in other posts I have over 100 filters that I always run my combinations through before I play them. I know this probably contradicts what I have said previously in this post about every combination has as much chance as any other, but I am always hopeful that my methods HAVE a slight edge.

Well, good luck with your latest trial using Lotto Creo Pro, please keep us all upto date with any developments whether good or bad.

Regards,
PAB
:wavey:

-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-
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.
 

jack

Member
Hello, the lottery is random, any combination has the same chance, when for a unique event, now in 30 or more attempts, certain patterns will excel in percentages 75% and 25% random patterns. Ie 30 each sweepstakes sweepstakes 22.23
Go to the standards of higher peak (wider band) this is the law of the lottery.Hello, the lottery is random, any combination has the same chance, when for a unique event, now in 30 or more attempts, certain patterns will excel in percentages 75% and 25% random patterns. Ie 30 each sweepstakes sweepstakes 22.23
Go to the standards of higher peak (wider band) this is the law of the lottery.
 

Icewynd

Member
Hi Chillibill & PAB,

Interesting discussion. I too use excel and do my own analysis, but I think that there is a valuable aspect to using lotto software.

What you are really purchasing, in my estimation, is another viewpoint on the lotto. So, you are really paying for someone else's ideas and progamming expertise to give some different numbers than your analyis might have produced. That way you can use your ideas and some other ideas and avoid the 'tunnel vision' that might result from spending too much time with your own data base.

Not that any of us would be guilty of getting lost in data space for days on end! :lol3:
 

PAB

Member
Hi Icewynd,

Icewynd said:
...I think that there is a valuable aspect to using lotto software.

What you are really purchasing, in my estimation, is another viewpoint on the lotto. So, you are really paying for someone else's ideas and progamming expertise to give some different numbers than your analysis might have produced. That way you can use your ideas and some other ideas and avoid the 'tunnel vision' that might result from spending too much time with your own data base.
Although I pretty much agree with your above statement, I personally over nearly the last 20 years of the UK Lotto amalgamated literally HUNDREDS of data analysis, some of which are useful and can be used in whatever filtering I so wish, and those that until I calculated them and found that they gave no real insight or benefit and are ignored, although I still have he calculations updated with every draw in case I want to revisit any of them at any time in the future.

If you also scroll the Internet you can pretty much pick up EVERYTHING that is being used in ALL the Lotto programs out there.

As a side note, I never in my wildest dreams ever envisaged that there could be SO much information and analysis calculated with numbers drawn in a Lotto.

Regards,
PAB
:wavey:

-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-
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.
 

Icewynd

Member
PAB said:
As a side note, I never in my wildest dreams ever envisaged that there could be SO much information and analysis calculated with numbers drawn in a Lotto.


LOL -- maybe too much information! I know that, at times, I suffer from analysis paralysis -- being overwhelmed by too many bits of information, some of which are contradictory. I have found that it is best to focus on a few tried-and-true indicators.
 

PAB

Member
Hi Icewynd,

Icewynd said:
I have found that it is best to focus on a few tried-and-true indicators.
Exactly, otherwise it is just overkill.
I know your 649 Lotto has 68% more draws than ours here in the UK and that is why I test against your draw data as well. You have probably seen some of my posts where I have made a comparison with regard to filters etc with LOWER & UPPER limits between to the two Lotto's.

Regards,
PAB
:wavey:

-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-
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.
 
jack said:
Hello, the lottery is random, any combination has the same chance, when for a unique event, now in 30 or more attempts, certain patterns will excel in percentages 75% and 25% random patterns. Ie 30 each sweepstakes sweepstakes 22.23
Go to the standards of higher peak (wider band) this is the law of the lottery.Hello, the lottery is random, any combination has the same chance, when for a unique event, now in 30 or more attempts, certain patterns will excel in percentages 75% and 25% random patterns. Ie 30 each sweepstakes sweepstakes 22.23
Go to the standards of higher peak (wider band) this is the law of the lottery.

Sure, it is easy to say something is random when we have no idea how to deal with it. Please provide some sort of proof that it is purely random as you say (and everybody else who says that). I know what will be your response, "I haven't one because it is not needed - I have the belief it is random and no matter how I try to tackle it will statistics, programs, AI or whatever traditional method I get no better results than chance". Well, this doesn't make the lottery draws random, simply because these approaches have nothing to do with the draws themselves. 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. 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. So, unless if you have somehow a proof of lottery draws being actually purely random, don't say that.
 

Icewynd

Member
lottoarchitect said:
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. 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. So, unless if you have somehow a proof of lottery draws being actually purely random, don't say that.

Interesting comments, Lotto Architect.

Without getting into a discussion about the true nature of randomness, I would be interested in having you expand a bit on the above statement. Are you talking about the physical factors inherent in the ball machines, e.g. friction, static buildup, etc.? I don't think anyone would deny that does exist, but surely it impacts all balls equally. I am a bit skeptical that there is an exploitable niche there, but I am always willing to be educated.

Looking forward to hearing more. :)
 
Hi Icewynd, the BIG problem everyone makes is to think that since we can't find a way to do something with our senses, our thinking, our approaches, then it can't be done. The truth is really far from that as soon as we understand that not everything around us is humanly understandable or based on what a human interpret/believes/assumes of it.
So, you say "but surely it impacts all balls equally". You did fall again at the same problem. The answer is "WE DON'T KNOW" because we can't understand it with our own senses. True, there is a strong belief that this should equally impact all balls (I use your example). And I pretty sure that if we do that experiment millions of times, we'll possibly (still we don't know but we assume) that the overall outcome is pretty random. I don't disagree to that. 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.
Now, what I say here that has this reduced randomness behavior is that afew concecutive draws do have something in common. If you want to tell you why is this happening, I don't know. I can't tell you reasons for this but it is there most of the time, it can be due to physical factors, it can be due to moon's gravity it can be anything. Really uncountable small and big "forces" affect the result. Based on the results I get, it turns out that a few of those factors play the major part at the produced draw result however, sometimes this relationship is more obvious, sometimes it fades. I call this "locality" behavior reduced randomness. The engine I have designed doesn't look for something specific, it expects from the data to provide what they contain on their own and this relationship changes over time, quite often in major steps. So, the outcome is that locally draws do have connections but over the longer run they do conform to what we would call random. By the way, the effects of those few major factors can't be trapped by traditional methods such as statistics (due to their larger scale application you'll really analyze the random behavior, not the locality), or AI (lotto draws do not have AI), or neural netowrks (because this assumes a given sequence produces always the same result which I believe this will never ever happen). All these approaches are too elementary to even scratch the surface of supposedly random events and of course, we can't expect anything useful to come out from doing so.
If you want to read more about this, check my website, I have a detailed PDF that describes more things.
 

Icewynd

Member
lottoarchitect said:
Hi Icewynd, the BIG problem everyone makes is to think that since we can't find a way to do something with our senses, our thinking, our approaches, then it can't be done. The truth is really far from that as soon as we understand that not everything around us is humanly understandable or based on what a human interpret/believes/assumes of it.

I agree completely. In fact, I believe that what we refer to as "randomness" is actually a highly sophisticated system of order that is just beyond the reach of our minds and our mathematics.

lottoarchitect said:
Now, what I say here that has this reduced randomness behavior is that afew concecutive draws do have something in common. If you want to tell you why is this happening, I don't know. I can't tell you reasons for this but it is there most of the time, it can be due to physical factors, it can be due to moon's gravity it can be anything. Really uncountable small and big "forces" affect the result. Based on the results I get, it turns out that a few of those factors play the major part at the produced draw result however, sometimes this relationship is more obvious, sometimes it fades. I call this "locality" behavior reduced randomness.

Again, I agree. I would refer to this as the ebb and flow of the game, cycles and patterns that exist within the series of lottery draws. For example, why do some numbers hit multiple times while others don't come out for months? Why will you get a series of 10 draws with no numbers ending in 7, or no repeaters from the previous draw for 5 games?

lottoarchitect said:
The engine I have designed doesn't look for something specific, it expects from the data to provide what they contain on their own and this relationship changes over time, quite often in major steps. So, the outcome is that locally draws do have connections but over the longer run they do conform to what we would call random.

Interesting. I will have to have a closer look. :agree:
 
Icewynd said:
I agree completely. In fact, I believe that what we refer to as "randomness" is actually a highly sophisticated system of order that is just beyond the reach of our minds and our mathematics.

I wouldn't call it sophisticated, rather an ultra complex mechanism. "Sophisticated" implies some sort of brains which I think it doesn't apply to natural laws that produce an outcome. Of course I may be wrong as well. We just call all these events random because we don't have the ability to grasp this complexity with our brains.

Icewynd said:
Again, I agree. I would refer to this as the ebb and flow of the game, cycles and patterns that exist within the series of lottery draws. For example, why do some numbers hit multiple times while others don't come out for months? Why will you get a series of 10 draws with no numbers ending in 7, or no repeaters from the previous draw for 5 games?

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.
However, this can also be the effect of that "locality" I mention. At that point in time, the dynamics affected the results in such a way that the results produced a not-so-ordinary random outcome. There is a blurred line between reduced randomness and pure randomness (I'm not sure if "pure randomness" in any system exists to be honest).
To put this in a different perspective, assume we have a huge set of draw results, perhaps billions of draws made. If we observe overall this set and try to analyze it, we'll possibly conclude that overall the system behaves as a pure random mechanism with some very strong statistical confidence (chances our conclusion being wrong will be close to 0%). Observing however a very small set of consecutive draws is a very very very tiny bit of this huge set. In that tiny set, we can find characteristics that connect these results somehow. If we start moving "away" from this small set and introduce more and more draws, we'll start observing again a completely random outcome. This "locality" and the true overall random looks it has when viewed from a distance can co-exist however. One does not violate the other!
This is also the reason we can't extract anything meaningful using statistics. Because we have to use a quite larger set to produce something meaningful but at the same time "we lose" this locality.
Similarly for NN, whatever is trapped by its nodes, assumes an unchanged relation exists in there i.e. a given sequence must always produce the same next draw. It looks pretty unreasonable to my eyes to expect this to be true.

The bottom line is, if we attempt to approach "random" events with traditional methods (statistics/trends/AI/NN/skip patterns/hot-cold-due/occurences/anything humanly understandable), we'll simply say we can't predict because the tools used do not fit at all for this task and the outcome will be no better or worse than picking any number using any regular method.
 

Icewynd

Member
lottoarchitect said:
The bottom line is, if we attempt to approach "random" events with traditional methods (statistics/trends/AI/NN/skip patterns/hot-cold-due/occurences/anything humanly understandable), we'll simply say we can't predict because the tools used do not fit at all for this task and the outcome will be no better or worse than picking any number using any regular method.

So you are not using any of the above approaches in your software? What, then, is left? How can we venture to predict lotto numbers without the tools you list above?
 
None of these is used by the engine in any form. The process does what I call "randomness evolution", attempts to evolve the inherent randomness behavior of the tested system and produces at every step what I call "signature" which is used then to make a prediction. What I try to say in all the previous posts is, none of these approaches is applicable as an analysis mechanism to deal with that sort of experiments. So obviously the engine shouldn't and it doesn't anyway rely or use any such methods - to put this in a different perspective: if we can understand what a given engine does, then it is not suitable to predict lotto draws. I'm sure you understand I'll not reveal details of how this randomness evolution is done.
 

Sidebar

Top