March 5 DISCUSSION

[Dennis Bassboss]

Of course the same thing could be done with the higest number calculating lets say if 42 is the higest number..
Than considering that we have 49 numbers...
50=0
49=1
48=2
47=3
46=4
45=5
44=6
43=7
42=8
So I think that having values between 2 existing numbers from the set is O:K:

 

[Dennis Bassboss]

Re: Use of lowest number

I have seen the Delta theory explained with or without the lowest number.

But for me when analyzing gaps, the lowest number should not be considered, a gap being the difference between two consecutive and increasing numbers. All calculations are based on this.

Just saw this! Thanks Gilles great stats!

 

[Beaker]

The reason why you need to consider the first number as the first gap is because if you use the 5-gap definition, you have to ask yourself "where is the first gap from???"

Example #607 gap 5-5-5-5-5 -- beautiful!! But the first gap of 5 is from what number 6? 14? 9? You don't know, and if you don't know the first gap, you will be playing alot of tickets.

You need to know the first number in gap analysis - that's why I asked that question

 

[Dennis Bassboss]

The reason why you need to consider the first number as the first gap is because if you use the 5-gap definition, you have to ask yourself "where is the first gap from???"

Example #607 gap 5-5-5-5-5 -- beautiful!! But the first gap of 5 is from what number 6? 14? 9? You don't know, and if you don't know the first gap, you will be playing alot of tickets.

You need to know the first number in gap analysis - that's why I asked that question

The question is very relevant Beaker! But Gilles in his post just said to us that he is not using the first gap and he starts with the first 2 numbers so he only wind up having 5 gaps like five deltas numbers...
For our purposes it is mostly significant to have the first gap...but as I explained you can start doing it from both ends of the total numbers in the draws...and that would be a real pleasure to see!
1-Starting from 00
2-Starting from 50

 

[Dennis Bassboss]

And this is where the average spreading among these average gaps would be really nice to see!!

 

[GillesD]

Using the lowest number as a gap

Here is the data when considering the lowest number in a draw as the first gap:

01 -- 000 times -- 0.00% -- 0.00%
02 -- 000 times -- 0.00% -- 0.00%
03 -- 000 times -- 0.00% -- 0.00%
04 -- 001 times -- 0.05% -- 0.05%
05 -- 002 times -- 0.10% -- 0.15%
06 -- 003 times -- 0.15% -- 0.30%
07 -- 013 times -- 0.65% -- 0.95%
08 -- 014 times -- 0.70% -- 1.65%
09 -- 032 times -- 1.60% -- 3.26%
10 -- 060 times -- 3.01% -- 6.27%
11 -- 096 times -- 4.81% -- 11.08%
12 -- 126 times -- 6.32% -- 17.40%
13 -- 181 times -- 9.08% -- 26.48%
14 -- 171 times -- 8.58% -- 35.06%
15 -- 176 times -- 8.83% -- 43.88%
16 -- 197 times -- 9.88% -- 53.76%
17 -- 147 times -- 7.37% -- 61.13%
18 -- 135 times -- 6.77% -- 67.90%
19 -- 124 times -- 6.22% -- 74.12%
20 -- 097 times -- 4.86% -- 78.99%
21 -- 081 times -- 4.06% -- 83.05%
22 -- 070 times -- 3.51% -- 86.56%
23 -- 055 times -- 2.76% -- 89.32%
24 -- 043 times -- 2.16% -- 91.47%
25 -- 040 times -- 2.01% -- 93.48%
26 -- 030 times -- 1.50% -- 94.98%
27 -- 035 times -- 1.76% -- 96.74%
28 -- 015 times -- 0.75% -- 97.49%
29 -- 012 times -- 0.60% -- 98.09%
30 -- 015 times -- 0.75% -- 98.85%
31 -- 005 times -- 0.25% -- 99.10%
32 -- 007 times -- 0.35% -- 99.45%
33 -- 002 times -- 0.10% -- 99.55%
34 -- 003 times -- 0.15% -- 99.70%
35 -- 002 times -- 0.10% -- 99.80%
36 -- 001 times -- 0.05% -- 99.85%
37 -- 001 times -- 0.05% -- 99.90%
38 -- 002 times -- 0.10% -- 100.00%
39 -- 000 times -- 0.00% -- 100.00%
40 -- 000 times -- 0.00% -- 100.00%
41 -- 000 times -- 0.00% -- 100.00%
42 -- 000 times -- 0.00% -- 100.00%
43 -- 000 times -- 0.00% -- 100.00%
44 -- 000 times -- 0.00% -- 100.00%

The information is the same as before: largest gap, number of times, percentage for 1994 draws and cumulative percentage.

The average gap is 7.16 when using 5 gaps per draw and 7.19 when using 6 gaps per draw (the bonus number is never considered).

 

[Dennis Bassboss]

Thanks for these Gilles...
Great stats Gilles Thank you!
I looked for these in the meantime so Beaker could know about the first number a little bit more...
Here are the total first numbers gap Beaker...
considering the -00 factor...
GAP••••times••••last time it happenned
01••••••251•••••• (1993)
02••••••208•••••• (1992)
03••••••181•••••• (1991)
04••••••180•••••• (1982)
05••••••143•••••• (1994)
07••••••134•••••• (1987)
06••••••122•••••• (1963)
09••••••101•••••• (1984)
08••••••097•••••• (1989)
10••••••082•••••• (1973)
11••••••079•••••• (1937)
12••••••068•••••• (1976)
13••••••054•••••• (1936)
16••••••041•••••• (1886)
14••••••036•••••• (1938)
15••••••034•••••• (1988)
17••••••034•••••• (1897)
18••••••027•••••• (1983)
19••••••027•••••• (1928)
20••••••022•••••• (1964)
23••••••015•••••• (1430)
21••••••014•••••• (1965)
22••••••014•••••• (1705)
26••••••006•••••• (1974)
25••••••005•••••• (1925)
24••••••004•••••• (1755)
27••••••004•••••• (1282)
30••••••003•••••• (1281)
28••••••002•••••• (1418)
29••••••002•••••• (1453)
31••••••002•••••• (0803)
32••••••001•••••• (0962)
38••••••001•••••• (1748)

 

[Beaker]

Re: Using the lowest number as a gap

Here is the data when considering the lowest number in a draw as the first gap:
...
13 -- 181 times -- 9.08% -- 26.48%
14 -- 171 times -- 8.58% -- 35.06%
15 -- 176 times -- 8.83% -- 43.88%
16 -- 197 times -- 9.88% -- 53.76%
17 -- 147 times -- 7.37% -- 61.13%
...
This is what I don't understand Why do these gaps peak at 16?

Also, if this is true and we consider our decade analysis, can we make this statement:

If one decade misses - thats 10 positions. In order to get between 13-17 as a gap we need to go on one side or the other to hit this gap total.

Consider this: I think the 20's will miss, so in order to get a gap of between 13-17, the set has to start at 15-19 on the low side
and 32-36 on the high side OR 30-34 and 13-17

Maybe we have to look closer at this decade analysis. It might not be 10 numbers, it could be up to 17!!!

Although, we know that we get a 2-decade miss, 3 out of 10 draws and we also get these kinds of gaps with low numbers in one decade and high numbers in the adjacent decade.

 

[Dennis Bassboss]

To add to all of this Lets look at this from the high side or last position....
Now considering the 50– factor…
Gap•••••••times••••last time it happenned
50-••••••••••••••••••••••••
49=01••••••246••••••(1984)
47=03••••••230••••••(1994)
48=02••••••200••••••(1992)
46=04••••••166••••••(1985)
45=05••••••159••••••(1991)
44=06••••••145••••••(1982)
43=07••••••136••••••(1971)
42=08••••••119••••••(1965)
41=09••••••091••••••(1988)
40=10••••••086••••••(1969)
39=11••••••067••••••(1976)
38=12••••••055••••••(1990)
37=13••••••048••••••(1983)
36=14••••••044••••••(1957)
35=15••••••042••••••(1887)
34=16••••••028••••••(1835)
33=17••••••026••••••(1846)
31=19••••••022••••••(1891)
32=18••••••019••••••(1817)
30=20••••••015••••••(1545)
29=21••••••010••••••(1966)
28=22••••••009••••••(1993)
27=23••••••008••••••(1691)
26=24••••••006••••••(1952)
25=25••••••004••••••(1715)
23=27••••••003••••••(0687)
20=30••••••002••••••(1871)
21=29••••••002••••••(1501)
24=26••••••002••••••(1074)
13=37••••••001••••••(0073)
18=32••••••001••••••(1446)
19=31••••••001••••••(1414)
22=28••••••001••••••(0795)

 

[Dennis Bassboss]

And both of these two grids do not considers the bonus...

 

[Rebeckah]

Re: Re: Using the lowest number as a gap

This is what I don't understand Why do these gaps peak at 16?

Also, if this is true and we consider our decade analysis, can we make this statement:

If one decade misses - thats 10 positions. In order to get between 13-17 as a gap we need to go on one side or the other to hit this gap total.

Consider also that any sequence with 2 or 3 decades missed is adding to the statistics total of those gaps. From my analysis, 1 or 2 decades skipped is more frequent than none

 

[Beaker]

Re: Re: Re: Using the lowest number as a gap

Consider also that any sequence with 2 or 3 decades missed is adding to the statistics total of those gaps. From my analysis, 1 or 2 decades skipped is more frequent than none

For sure Rebeckah Based on our 6/49 roughly 3/10 have 2 or more decades missing 1/10 has all decades hit and 6/10 have 1 missing.

 

[GillesD]

Peak for largest gap

Actually, the peak for the largest gap is not exactly where it should be.

The following table gives the true percentages for the largest gap. The first column identifies the gap, then the percentage using only 5 gaps and then the percentage using 6 gaps. All percentages are calculated based on actual data for the 13,983,816 combinations.

01 - 0.00% - 0.00%
02 - 0.01% - 0.00%
03 - 0.06% - 0.00%
04 - 0.20% - 0.02%
05 - 0.49% - 0.08%
06 - 0.99% - 0.22%
07 - 1.73% - 0.51%
08 - 2.72% - 1.03%
09 - 3.92% - 1.92%
10 - 5.24% - 3.30%
11 - 6.51% - 5.06%
12 - 7.53% - 6.85%
13 - 8.14% - 8.22%
14 - 8.28% - 8.95%
15 - 8.01% - 9.03%
16 - 7.43% - 8.60%
17 - 6.67% - 7.85%
18 - 5.84% - 6.94%
19 - 5.01% - 5.98%
20 - 4.22% - 5.05%
21 - 3.51% - 4.21%
22 - 2.89% - 3.46%
23 - 2.35% - 2.82%
24 - 1.90% - 2.28%
25 - 1.52% - 1.82%
26 - 1.20% - 1.44%
27 - 0.94% - 1.13%
28 - 0.73% - 0.87%
29 - 0.55% - 0.67%
30 - 0.42% - 0.50%
31 - 0.31% - 0.37%
32 - 0.22% - 0.27%
33 - 0.16% - 0.19%
34 - 0.11% - 0.13%
35 - 0.07% - 0.09%
36 - 0.05% - 0.06%
37 - 0.03% - 0.03%
38 - 0.02% - 0.02%
39 - 0.01% - 0.01%
40 - 0.00% - 0.01%
41 - 0.00% - 0.00%
42 - 0.00% - 0.00%
43 - 0.00% - 0.00%
44 - 0.00% - 0.00%

So with 5 gaps the peak should be at 14 and with 6 gaps at 15.

 

[Dennis Bassboss]

Thank you Gilles! Really interesting stuff!