Master Lottery Software

[Frank]

Who or what makes or decides that last Wed lotto results very popular numbers? Where do you get that idea

from?.

Moses, the definition of the word popular is "Liked or admired or chosen by many people". Since the Lotto changed to 6/59 format and before Last Wednesdays draw the average number of match 5 winners per draw was just 80. So popular numbers must be the ones contained in draws where an excessive over average number of match 5 winners appear. 4082 match 5 winners is the highest number of match 5 winners in UK Lotto history. BY DEFINITION that makes five of the six main malls popular numbers.

Are you by any chance trying to say for the past 22 years we did not have popular numbers and all of sudden there we have it?

So if this situation had never occurred before where do you get the idea the following lotto result were popular numbers??? Please

explain

These people will have had these numbers for donkeys years. They didn't suddenly become popular, you don't know what numbers people have chosen until those numbers are drawn in the lottery. Then suddenly you find out ! If you can give me an example of them being drawn before and not being popular please tell me where they are.

23/03/2016, 14,21,42,35,07,41,43 ------ lotto result with £15 match 5 payout
Let’s analyse above set of numbers

Above set of numbers has got 65 times match 3s and 4 times match 4s in past history of lotto results which some of the very

recent ones are below

20/02/2016, 57,17,35,02,59,41,42 (match 4 = £158, match 5 = £1698)
30/01/2016, 01,44,31,06,21,41,42 (41,42 in exact location, match 4 = £67 and match 5 = £487)
03/10/2015, 14,44,08,09,35,07,04 (the same format is current draw, for this draw and the prize for matching 4 numbers was £70,

matching 5 numbers £970)
25/07/2015, 04,14,22,29,07,21,41 (matching 4 numbers would have won you £79 and matching 5 £890)

Moses, I am sure you are aware that the prize money paid out at match 4 ,5 and 5+BB is dependent on many factors. The number of tickets sold as well as the result can decide how many people share at a prize and consequently what the individual payout is. Also the day of week affects sales and hence individidual shares. Simply cherry picking at past results out of context proves nothing.

You should be aware, to put these in context that:-

The average no of prizewinners (per draw) for the 6/49 Lotto at Match 5 level, since the price of a ticket was £2 (and sales halved) = 297 on Saturday and 161 on Wednesday.

The average no of prizewinners (per draw) for the 6/59 at Match 5 level, = 94 on Saturday and 69 on Wednesday.(Excludes last Wednesdays draw)

(Saturday) 20/02/2016, 57,17,35,02,59,41,42 (match 4 = £158, match 5 = £1698)

The Only main ball multiple of 7, was 35! 42 was a bonus, not valid in a match 5 win. There were only 60 match 5 winners, well below the Saturday average, for the 6/59 format. Hence the high payout.


(Saturday) 30/01/2016, 01,44,31,06,21,41,42 (41,42 in exact location, match 4 = £67 and match 5 = £487)

Contains one multiple of 7 in the main balls. The bonus ball 42, not valid in a match 5 win. There were 239 match 5 winners, more than double the average number for Saturdays 6/59 format. 1 and 6 are popular numbers (1,2,3,4,5,6 ) possibly the most popular set. Hence the number of match 3 winners was 199,925 - more than the Saturday's average,155,500.


(Saturday) 03/10/2015, 14,44,08,09,35,07,04 (the same format is current draw, for this draw and the prize for matching 4 numbers was £70, matching 5 numbers £970)

If by same format you mean same drawn position, then order is irrelevant for a match 5 win which does not take position into account. Also you are not comparing like for like since this draw was 6/49 and the one in question is 6/59 (Different prize percentages applied - see below). There are two multiples of 7 and a triplet 7,8,9 which meant that the number of match 3 winners was 300,667 - more than the average Saturday 287,470 match 3 win. The number of match 5 winners was close to average.

With the introduction of 6/59 Camelot changed the rules for prize allocation to allow for funding of the 1 million pound raffle. This means that the prize fund for match 5 is now 0.3564% of the total sales.

Previously it was 4.5% of (42.47% of ticket sales - cost of match 3 wins). Which works out at more than the formula above. This why prizes for the 649 lotto were considerably higher than for the 6/59.

(Wednesday) 15/07/2015, 04,14,22,29,07,21,41 (matching 4 numbers would have won you £79 and matching 5 £890),

Old lotto rules, the same argument applies. Three multiples of 7 and the number of match 5, 4 and 3 winners were way above the Wednesday £2 ticket average. Popular numbers!

Apart from the last one, which contains possible birthdays and multiples of seven in the main balls, few in the list you just published has relevance to FIVE popular main ball numbers.

Surely you are not going to tell me that you didn't know that number 7 was considered lucky ? The number 42 has double luckiness as its also the meaning of life, the universe and everything.

Popular numbers cannot effect and target just one particular division such as matching 5 numbers only!

Well Moses, I just demonstrated that above, so we agree on that one. I'm wondering what your point is, but I assume you are implying that draw 2113, that's the 23/03/2016, 14,21,42,35,07,41,43 --- lotto result that paid out £15 for match 5... did NOT affect other 'divisions' ?

Well it DID. Match 5 plus bonus ball 6 winners, five more than the Wednesday average. Match four 7879 winners, 3500 more than the Wednesday average. Match three 114232 winners, 16000 more than the Wednesday average. Popular numbers Moses !

For your information the average match count of winners per draw over the 649 history is (per draw)

average no of prizewinners at Match 5, = 508
average no of prizewinners at Match 5 +BB = 12
average no of prizewinners for Jackpot = 4

If you filter the results to show only the results with more than 1000 match 5 wiinners (the popular numbers)

Then you get:- 156 draws in which

average no of prizewinners at Match 5, = 1386
average no of prizewinners at Match 5 +BB = 34
average no of prizewinners for Jackpot = 6

This PROVES that popular match 5's = improved match 5 +BB wins and improved Jackpot wins on average. It doesn't guarantee a jackpot win because the Golden Ball that everyone was banking on could be missing for that draw.

Also with this popular numbers then how come no-one won the jackpot,which number was so unpopular that made the jackpot rollover?

That's obvious Moses. None of numbers 42 or 49 or 56 were drawn ! They would be on tickets but weren't drawn.

To cut story short and give you perfect example of their theft they have created 1.5b combinations method (15 colours and 8 digits) to pay 21 prizes whilst lottery itself has 14 million combinations (6/49) and 1000s of winners!!This is like you decide to give street beggar $1 but you make it so difficult for him to get your $1 by giving him mixed Rubix-Cube
to solve and sort it! If you want to give your dollar away so why making it so difficult for the beggar therefore if Camelot guaranteeing to give away 20 X £20,000 why they have chosen 1.5 billion combinations to go through and select winners?
To me that is impossible task to win so those winners do not exist and they just pocket the money!

Moses, anyone who has either run a raffle or participated in one will know that the number of tickets available has nothing to do with the number of tickets entered into the raffle. In a real world raffle the tickets are sold from one of many books, and each ticket has a counterfoil or stub which is a copy of the sold ticket, which then goes in the drum for the raffle. The number of books of tickets available or the number of tickets that could be sold has no relevance to the probability of winning. You are trying to suggest that just because there are 1.5 billion combinations AVAILABLE (the population of Europe and North America put together) that this is the odds against winning the millionaire raffle, which is grossly misleading. Every ticket sold is isued with a raffle ticket number per line and it is those numbers that go into the draw . The odds against winning the raffle are exactly equal to the number of lottery lines bet on in the draw, its as simple as that.

There is no evidence of anything underhand, illegal or irregular. The rules for calculating prizes at various levels are set in stone, and unfortunately too many people liked those numbers in draw 2113, and the calculations came up with low payments. I wouldn't have liked either, but then I wouldn't have picked those numbers.

Regards,
Frank

 

[Frank]

Correction 42 was drawn, it was 28 or 49 or 56 missing last Wednesday.

 

[Moses]

Correction 42 was drawn, it was 28 or 49 or 56 missing last Wednesday.

Déjà vu

First it was Gill-D defending Camelot trying to cover their bull**** now is Frank
How can you cover up their crap and thinking of us as total stupid Frank? Your examples are all one sided which is Camelot’s side!

Below is the example of the winning prize table for the last draw when UK lotto was 6/49 direct from Camelot’s website and then you give me one example for any winning table for the time when UK lottery has changed to 59 numbers and then we compare the difference

Wed 07 Oct 15/ 6/49 = 14 million to 1 ---------------------- 6/59 = 45 million to 1

M6 ------ 1 ------- £3,348,134
5 + 1 ---- 8 ------ £12,956 = £103,648
5 --------- 236 --- £372 = £87,792
4 --------12609-- £36 = £453,924
3 ---- 206,946 --£25 = £5,173,650

Below was the 6/49 prize structure

6-match (Jackpot)
This is allocated 52% of the Prize Pool plus any rollover from the previous draw's un-won jackpot prize pool
If there is no jackpot winner, then the entire jackpot prize pool is "rolled over" to the next draw. This can happen a maximum of 3 times. I there is a 4th consecutive draw where the jackpot is not won jackpot prize pool is shared amongst the 5+bonus winners of the 4th draw or amongst the 5-match winners of the 4th draw if there are no such 5+bonus winners

5+bonus-match Prize
This gets 16% of the Prize Pool plus the 4th consecutive un-won jackpot prize if there is one. If there are no 5+bonus winners and it's not the 4th consecutive un-won jackpot, then the 5+bonus prize pool is added to the jackpot prize pool for the same draw

5-match Prize
10% of the Prize Pool plus the 4th consecutive un-won jackpot prize pool if there's no 5+bonus winners as well. If there are no 5-match winners, the 5-match prize pool is added to the 4-match prize pool for the same draw

4-match Prize
22% of the Prize Pool plus the 5-match Prize Pool if there are no 5-match winners. If there are no 4-match winners, then the 4-match Prize Pool is shared equally amongst the 3-match winners in addition to their standard £10 prize

Below is 6/59 prize structure
• 6-match (Jackpot) Prize Pool (Avg prize pool: Sat - £5m, Wed - £3m)
66.4% of the Pools Fund plus any rollover from the previous draw's un-won jackpot prize pool. An occasional Super Draw, funded from 5% of the ticket sales of previous lotteries, will either top-up by adding a fixed amount or guarantee a minimum jackpot prize pool. If there is no jackpot winner, then the entire jackpot prize pool is "rolled over" to the next draw. This can happen a maximum of 4 times - if there is a 5th consecutive draw where the jackpot wasn't won, the jackpot prize pool is shared amongst the 5+bonus
winners of the 5th draw or amongst the 5-match winners of the 5th draw if there are no such 5+bonus winners.
• 5+bonus-match Prize Pool (Avg prize: £50,000)
5.3% of the Pools Fund plus the 4th consecutive unwon jackpot prize pool as detailed above. If there are no 5+bonus winners and it's not the 5th consecutive unwon jackpot, then the 5+bonus prize pool is added to the jackpot prize pool for the same draw. This has happened only once to date.
• 5-match Prize Pool (Avg prize: £1,500)
4.5% of the Pools Fund plus the 4th consecutive unwon jackpot prize pool if there's no 5+bonus winners as well. If there are no 5-match winners, the 5-match prize pool is added to the 4-match prize pool for the same draw.
• 4-match Prize Pool (Avg prize: £100)
23.8% of the Pools Fund plus the 5-match Prize Pool if there are no 5-match winners. If there are no 4-match winners, then the 4-match Prize Pool is shared equally amongst the 3-match winners in addition to their standard £25 prize
As obvious as anything, adding 10 more balls had increased the odds from 14 million to 45,057,474, increasing the odds by 31 millions
Then the prize category for matching 5 numbers from 10% of prize pool had reduced to 4.5%!
Camelot had made lottery game more than 4 times harder to win any prizes but they have reduced the prize structure by more than half! If this is not robbery then what is which you defending them so hard?
And why Camelot had done this course of action, is it because they want to give more prizes away or is it they want to keep nation’s money and have no intention to depart from it?

Please don’t insult people’s intelligence by showing your support for Camelot whereas you are only making a fool of yourself. I am not as stupid as you think I am Frank.
If you wish I can make a question time here for you on this forum, I ask and you answer then we see how many questions you will provide direct answer just to find out who is right and who is wrong!

 

[Icewynd]

I didn't read anything in Frank's statements that defended Camelot. He was just explaining the situation -- and doing it very well, too!

Camelot didn't get to keep any money. Instead of paying out a lot of money to a few winners they paid out a little money to a lot of winners. End result is the same -- the prize money was paid out.

You all know the rules. If you don't like them and you still choose to play then you have no one to blame but yourself!

Good Luck!

 

[Frank]

I have never defended Camelot. I merely present well researched, verifiable FACTS. I'm not interested in your questions, only well researched verifiable FACTS. You do not seem to be interested in them, so we will have to agree to differ. I will let readers decide who is making a fool of themself.

 

[Moses]

I didn't read anything in Frank's statements that defended Camelot. He was just explaining the situation -- and doing it very well, too!

Camelot didn't get to keep any money. Instead of paying out a lot of money to a few winners they paid out a little money to a lot of winners. End result is the same -- the prize money was paid out.

You all know the rules. If you don't like them and you still choose to play then you have no one to blame but yourself!

Good Luck!

Hi Icewynd
I don’t think you catch my drift at all!
If any organisations claiming that their pay out is so much and created TAX book for it and if it is proven that their claims are false and exaggerated then that company is committing FRAUD, yes it is fraud to make a false claims and creating false books! So it is not a case of I play or don’t as you have mentioned it in your simple rule, no it is not as easy as you think it is!
I am trying to produce evidences that lottery operators are committing fraud and providing examples that the winners they claim its totally rubbish so that some might see my point and not play the lottery but some they insist that I am wrong without providing any facts!

Here is another example of Camelot’s cheat



Wed 24 Feb 2016
Jackpot: £2,275,802
Draw 2105 | Draw machine: Arthur | Ball set: 1
• Draw details
• Prize breakdown
Prize breakdown listed below.
No. of matches No. of winners Prize per winner Prize fund
Match 6----------- 0----------- £0----------------------- £2,275,802
Match 5 + Bonus- 5----------- £10,394----------------- £51,970
Match 5----------- 196--------- £279--------------------- £54,684
Match 4----------- 7,901------- £44---------------------- £347,644
Match 3----------- 136,168---- £25---------------------- £3,404,200
Match 2----------- 989,006---- Free Lotto Lucky Dip £1,978,012
Raffle tier 1 1------------------ £1,000,000-------------- £1,000,000
Raffle tier 2 20----------------- £20,000----------------- £400,000
Totals --------------1,133,297---------------------------- £9,512,312

Someone and who better than Frank try to match those prizes pay out to the proposed percentage table by Camelot
66.4% = Jackpot
5.3% = 5 + 1
4.5% = 5 numbers
23.8% = 4 numbers

Please enlighten me as I am not very good working percentages because whichever I try to work it out it does not match to what Camelot suggests!

Moses

 

[Frank]

Moses, you will not manage to make those figures work out because you are quoting 649 prize rules for a 659 lottery. I did mention the rules change in my post.

You need these rules:-

https://www.national-lottery.co.uk/games/lotto/game-procedures#int_fund

Sections D and E

Also you cannot even begin to calculate anything until you know the Lotto Sales figures. Camelot do not publish this. However RK LLoyds Merseyworld site reverse engineers the prize money to work the sales out.

For the draw in question the Pools fund was 17.82% of sales and the sales were £15,349,828.

Pools fund= £2,735,339.35

The Jackpot was 83.2% of the Pools fund = £2,275,802.

The 5 plus BB was 1.9% of the pools fund = £51,971.45. with 5 winners this divides out at £10,394,29. However Camelot round down to the nearest pound, so the prize money is £10,394.00 . 5 times £10,394.00 =£51,970.

The match 5 is 2% of the pools fund = £54,706 with 196 winners. This divides out to £279.12. However Camelot round down to the nearest pound, so the prize money is £279. £279 x 196 = £54,684.


The Match 4 is 12.9% of the pools fund = £352,858.77 with 7901 winners. This works out to £44.66. However Camelot round down to the nearest pound, so the prize money is £44.00. £44 x 7901 = £347,644.


The match 3 and match 2 are fixed prizes. No calculation required.

Is this OK for you Moses ?

 

[Moses]

Moses, you will not manage to make those figures work out because you are quoting 649 prize rules for a 659 lottery. I did mention the rules change in my post.

You need these rules:-

https://www.national-lottery.co.uk/games/lotto/game-procedures#int_fund

Sections D and E

Also you cannot even begin to calculate anything until you know the Lotto Sales figures. Camelot do not publish this. However RK LLoyds Merseyworld site reverse engineers the prize money to work the sales out.

For the draw in question the Pools fund was 17.82% of sales and the sales were £15,349,828.

Pools fund= £2,735,339.35

The Jackpot was 83.2% of the Pools fund = £2,275,802.

The 5 plus BB was 1.9% of the pools fund = £51,971.45. with 5 winners this divides out at £10,394,29. However Camelot round down to the nearest pound, so the prize money is £10,394.00 . 5 times £10,394.00 =£51,970.

The match 5 is 2% of the pools fund = £54,706 with 196 winners. This divides out to £279.12. However Camelot round down to the nearest pound, so the prize money is £279. £279 x 196 = £54,684.


The Match 4 is 12.9% of the pools fund = £352,858.77 with 7901 winners. This works out to £44.66. However Camelot round down to the nearest pound, so the prize money is £44.00. £44 x 7901 = £347,644.


The match 3 and match 2 are fixed prizes. No calculation required.

Is this OK for you Moses ?

Oh Frank

This is what I exactly mean by suggesting you support Camelot whole heartedly by throwing any rubbish comes in your hand!
First of all I don’t believe what you wrote is your information which I think someone else has given it to you to post it here because I don’t really think you have read it before you post it, why? Because that information is wrong from the top to bottom, not only the figures do not match with Camelot’s proposed prize category percentage but also the percentage you have produced does not add up either and by far is way out from reality!

Please allow me explain

For your information, you do not need the total money which collected as result of ticket sales because only 45% of the sales goes toward prize pot and 55% goes to Camelot (we led to believe however by Lot/Com, proposed figures by Camelot to Licencing Dep)
For every £1 of ticket sales the breakdown as follows
12% = TAX
28% = Charities
05% = Scratch Cards
05% = Retailers
05% = Camelot’s profit
Total = 55%

If the prize pot is £9,512,312 which is 45% of the sales so to work out the whole ticket sales is very simple and you do NOT need any reverse engineering as it is not a rocket science (High school year 2 or 3 should be able to this)
£9,512,312 x 55% / 45% = £11,676,159 = 55%
45% + 55% = 100%
£9,512,312 + £11,676,159 = £21,138,471 = Total ticket sales
Was that easy enough for you Frank? Now you can do this yourself and you do not need RK….. whatever rubbish!
So the actual figure above does NOT match to what your friend had suggested and therefore that is not a reliable source.

As for the rest of your information

For the draw in question the Pools fund was 17.82% of sales and the sales were £15,349,828.

Pools fund= £2,735,339.35

The Jackpot was 83.2% of the Pools fund = £2,275,802.

The 5 plus BB was 1.9% of the pools fund = £51,971.45. with 5 winners this divides out at £10,394,29. However Camelot round down to the nearest pound, so the prize money is £10,394.00 . 5 times £10,394.00 =£51,970.

The match 5 is 2% of the pools fund = £54,706 with 196 winners. This divides out to £279.12. However Camelot round down to the nearest pound, so the prize money is £279. £279 x 196 = £54,684.


The Match 4 is 12.9% of the pools fund = £352,858.77 with 7901 winners. This works
out to £44.66. However Camelot round down to the nearest pound, so the prize money is £44.00. £44 x 7901 = £347,644.

You have said the total pools fund was £2,735,339.35 where did you get this figure from? If it is based on RK … I have already proved that his calculation is wrong so basically all other calculations are wrong too! May be he is another source who works for Camelot and his job is to feed rubbish to us! How can pools fund be £2,735,339.35 when Camelot paid out £9.5 millions?
You have said the prize fund for that particular draw was 17.82%!!!! WHY 17.82% when it should be 45%????? What happened to other 27.8%?????? Stolen perhaps?
Why your calculations are based on the total sales which is totally irrelevant and should be based on the 45% of the prize pot?????

Bottom line is Frank, if Camelot is committed to some licencing rules then they must follow those guidelines and they cannot step outside of it! When the rules are to pay 45% of gross income towards the prizes they cannot go ahead and pay 17.82% and even this figure is proved to be baseless and wrong!
The prize pay-out rules used to be printed on the back of the playing slips but not anymore, like everything else the doors and windows are left open for the thieves to take whatever they want and leave some police behind to explain and justify their theft, unless there are some hidden rules that I am not aware of it and if there is I would apologise sincerely when I see it.

Back to my calculations
45% of tickets sold which is £21,138,471 x 45% = £9,512,312 - matched to Camelot’s prize
£9,512,312 less Raffle prizes £1,400,000 = £8,112,312
£8,112,312 x 66.4% = £5,386,575 this should have been jackpot prize does not match to Camelot’s
£8,112,312 x 05.3% = £429,953 match 5 +1 divided to 5 winners so each winners should have received £85,990 and not £10,394 this is huge difference and well deserved to scoop that money for matching 5 + 1 specially 6 from 59 numbers!
All the rest of other prizes will follow the same practice and one you add the individual prizes up again it will and should sum up to £9,512,312

Over to you
Any other comments perhaps from anybody else? Don't just read please participate as this is one way to learn more and correct our mistakes

Moses

 

[Moses]

Moses, you will not manage to make those figures work out because you are quoting 649 prize rules for a 659 lottery. I did mention the rules change in my post.

You need these rules:-

https://www.national-lottery.co.uk/games/lotto/game-procedures#int_fund

Sections D and E

Also you cannot even begin to calculate anything until you know the Lotto Sales figures. Camelot do not publish this. However RK LLoyds Merseyworld site reverse engineers the prize money to work the sales out.

For the draw in question the Pools fund was 17.82% of sales and the sales were £15,349,828.

Pools fund= £2,735,339.35

The Jackpot was 83.2% of the Pools fund = £2,275,802.

The 5 plus BB was 1.9% of the pools fund = £51,971.45. with 5 winners this divides out at £10,394,29. However Camelot round down to the nearest pound, so the prize money is £10,394.00 . 5 times £10,394.00 =£51,970.

The match 5 is 2% of the pools fund = £54,706 with 196 winners. This divides out to £279.12. However Camelot round down to the nearest pound, so the prize money is £279. £279 x 196 = £54,684.


The Match 4 is 12.9% of the pools fund = £352,858.77 with 7901 winners. This works out to £44.66. However Camelot round down to the nearest pound, so the prize money is £44.00. £44 x 7901 = £347,644.


The match 3 and match 2 are fixed prizes. No calculation required.

Is this OK for you Moses ?

If I deduct £25 wins which the total was (another scam) £3,404,200 plus raffle tickets of £1,400,000 and also Free lucky dip £1,978,012 then it all adds up to £6,782,212 and then deduct it from total prize pool then we have £2,730,100

£3,404,200 + £1,400,000 + £1,978,012 = £6,782,212
£9,512,312 - £6,782,212 = £2,730,100
This is the closest I can get to RK calculation which still does not match but however the percentage categories for all dividend are still wrong.

Moses

 

[Moses]

This is what I was waiting for

This is what I was waiting for to happen.

UK latest result

02/04/2016, 14,07,55,20,47,33,45 ------ from 7/59 field
06/03/1999, 08,37,43,32,47,33,45 ------ from 7/49 field

This means not only they have kept the 749 database but also they have added another 759 database to it too, therefore the choice of which database to use to produce numbers are widened!
Thunder-ball = 6/39 database
Euro/Health Lot = 6 and 7 from 50 database
Lotto = 749 and 759 database

If you search for 47,33,45 in 7/49, 7/50 and 7/59 then you can find this triple in exact locations in each of database but what and where this triple links to other triples are different in every one of them.
The triples for 39 and below are also in every database too including 59 table, the simple reason for that is because all the databases are produced by that belt at the very beginning of this thread.
Perhaps you can understand why there are so many lotteries with different formats are introduced is because to fool us so we don’t and can’t see the connections.
If you search the entire results for all lotteries (drawn order) then you can see the pattern of chain of sequences like this

A – B – X – D

If you search for triples but in that pattern then you will find more than once or twice repeats in exact locations but the only difference you will find A and B but number D matches to another result number and this is where the switches are taking place. Example

02/04/2016,11,34,10,36,39,07 ----- latest TB result

Search for 11,34,xx,36

You will find this result is old history of TB below
26/06/2010,11,34,33,20,01,03

The forth ball of the match found is number 20 which matches to forth ball of latest lotto result in exact location, below

02/04/2016, 14,07,55,20,47,33,45

And if you search for 14,07,xx,20 of lotto then you will find the following match in lotto results

04/09/1999,14,07,05,20,03,10,16

As well as finding this which the forth ball matches to TB this time (36)

13/10/2012,25,14,07,23,36,04

This is the only reason we tend to get sooooo many repeated identical pairs and triples in exact locations.
Please don’t fall for people’s rubbish that lottery is random and numbers are randomly generated, just think for one minute and use your logic then you see everything I suggests it makes sense and once you do some research in results then you will see that everything that I suggested is correct.
I hope above information will come handy to the guys who have the power of writing codes.

Moses

I probably consider giving you the secret to transform your sorted results to drawn order format if it helps anybody.

 

[Frank]

Oh Frank
This is what I exactly mean by suggesting you support Camelot whole heartedly by throwing any rubbish comes in your hand! First of all I don’t believe what you wrote is your information which I think someone else has given it to you to post it here because I don’t really think you have read it before you post it, why? Because that information is wrong from the top to bottom, not only the figures do not match with Camelot’s proposed prize category percentage but also the percentage you have produced does not add up either and by far is way out from reality!
Please allow me explain ...

Maybe you are looking at something else Moses, because from where I'm standing they match EXACTLY with CURRENT percentages. (You know, the ones you never looked at!)

For your information, you do not need the total money which collected as result of ticket sales because only 45% of the sales goes toward prize pot and 55% goes to Camelot (we led to believe however by Lot/Com, proposed figures by Camelot to Licencing Dep)
For every £1 of ticket sales the breakdown as follows
12% = TAX
28% = Charities
05% = Scratch Cards
05% = Retailers
05% = Camelot’s profit
Total = 55%
If the prize pot is £9,512,312 which is 45% of the sales so to work out the whole ticket sales is very simple and you do NOT need any reverse engineering as it is not a rocket science (High school year 2 or 3 should be able to this)

You cannot be serious ? You accuse ME of not reading things ??? Well it was April 1st when you replied. 45% ???Moses why have you published the above list? It has no relevance to the complex calculations required to reverse calculate sales from the given figures in a SPECIFIC lotto. Firstly the information above applied up to 2013, and nothing in that information is directly related to published INDIVIDUAL lottery information. If you had bothered to read the new rules, (I did provide you with a link) you would have known that under The 15th edition Game Procedures effective October 2015 (Clause E1) :-

"On average, 47.5% of sales for a Lotto Draw and Millionaire Raffle Draw will be available in Prizes for that Lotto Draw and Millionaire Raffle Draw (the "Prize Fund"). All cash Prizes will be rounded down to the nearest £1. "

The operative phrase there is ON AVERAGE. By DEFINITION it means sometimes it will be more than 47.5% and sometimes it will be less than 47.5%. This phrase by itself makes reverse calculation of sales in a specific Lottery by your simplistic" High school year 2 or 3 or Moses should be able to this" method a non-starter.

As you you are either too lazy or too indifferent to read the New rules I referred you to earlier , I will do all the hard work for you.
There is a PRIZE FUND, a POOLS FUND, a RAFFLE PRIZE FUND, a CAPPED PRIZE FUND and a RESERVE FUND. Had you bothered to read the rules you would have known this.

The PRIZE FUND is ON AVERAGE 47.5% of sales for that lotto draw. Note NOT 45%!

The prize fund consists of three parts :-
a) the RAFFLE prize fund which is derived from 6.93% of SALES. it is used exclusively to fund the £1 million raffle and £20,000 raffles. However it is linked to a RESERVE FUND. If the raffle prize fund fund fails to raise £1.4M to pay for raffle prizes, the difference comes from the RESERVE FUND. If the £1.4M amount won is less than 6.93% of sales in the raffle prize fund then the surplus goes into the RESERVE FUND.

b) The POOLS FUND is used to fund the incremental Jackpot, (that portion of the total jackpot generated this draw's sales), match 5 plus bonus ball , match 5 and match 4 prizes only. It is funded by 17.83% of sales for that lottery.

Note ! The pools fund does NOT supply prize money for the Match 3, Match 2 or the raffles !

c) The residue of the 47.5% of sales = 47.5 -17.83 -6.93 = 22.75 % of SALES (ON AVERAGE).This is called THE CAPPED PRIZE FUND. This is available to fund the Match 3 and Match 2 prizes ONLY.
So PRIZE FUND = POOLS FUND + (RAFFLE TICKET FUND plus or minus transfer to/from RESERVE FUND) + The CAPPED PRIZE FUND.

Also:-
The incremental Jackpot = 83.2% of the Pools fund.
The match 5 plus Bonus ball prize = 1.9% of the pools fund.
The match 5 prize = 2% of the Pools fund.
The Match 4 prize = 12.9% of the Pools fund.

Note that The reserve fund can be used for pretty much anything. Lotto promotions, extra raffles, Super draws, subsidise prize levels etc. So it CAN be rocket science to reverse calculate the sales for reasons I will go into below. Camelot can transfer some rollover money to this fund if they wish (and they do!)

However, you are right, I do not need RK Lloyd to do the reverse calculation as I have a spreadsheet to do it, which I designed myself without help from anyone and my figures closely match those of RK Lloyd, whom I have never met.

The reason it is not a straightforward calculation for every draw, is because there may be some unknowns that have to be overcome depending on whether it is a rollover draw, depending on whether the match 5 plus bonus ball was won or not (see below), depending on whether part of the Rollover jackpot was sent into the Reserve fund. Sometimes £1million or £500,000 of the rollover amount is deducted and sent onto the reserve fund. Camelot do not tell you this, it can be deduced when the calculated prize amounts disagree with the declared rollover jackpot amount.

On draws where the 5 plus bonus ball is not won Camelot publish a zero as the prize money for that tier. However, the prize money is added to the Jackpot, (you would have known this had you READ THE RULES ... ) so the published jackpot figure consists of 2 parts:- the generated incremental jackpot arising from 83.2% of the Pools fund PLUS the unknown 5 plus bonus ball prize money. Draw 2071 28 Oct 2015 was such a draw, AND it was a rollover draw.

This means that the reverse calculation of ticket sales relies on you correctly guessing the 5 plus bonus ball prize, then adding it to the jackpot, then reverse calculating the sales from this and then checking to see if all the KNOWN prize amounts you have been given actually match the ones you now can calculate from that (guessed) Sales figure. You need a recursive program to do the work (such as Excel's Solver). Because the published prize amounts are rounded down this adds a further level of complication since for example the published match 4 prize might be £44, but in reality it may have worked out to £44.66. Multiply the difference (£0.66) by 4601 ( the number of winners) then the cash difference is £5214.66 !. The prize amounts calculated from an iterative guessing method like solver , must match the published ROUNDED DOWN figures to solve the problem.

You happenned to use Draw 2105 above which is VERY straightforward because it is not a Rollover draw and the 5 plus BB was won , so we know that figure, and the Jackpot was not won. No money was transferred out to the Reserve Fund but £336,257 was borrowed from the reserve fund to pay for the raffles. You can easily work this out without a spreadsheet. Even that straightforward draw used 47.14% of sales (not 47.5%) to provide prizes.

So forget about lecturing me on how to estimate sales figures and reconcile published figures because I'm probably one of the few people outside Camelot who can actually do it.

I'm having to split my reply because it is so long...

 

[Frank]

How can pools fund be £2,735,339.35 when Camelot paid out £9.5 millions?

We are back to you not having read the rules and terminology, Moses.
The pools fund is 17.82% of SALES for that lotto draw, and only pays for PART of the prizes.
So in this draw the pools fund only paid for the match 4 and above prizes which amounted to a total of £454,298. The jackpot rolled over but is funded easily from the above amount.

The Prize money for the Match 2 and 3 winners came from the (22.75% of sales on average) Capped prize fund , but no cash is actually issued for match 2, just free tickets, so the £3,492,085 generated from (on average 22.75%) of sales paid for the £3,404,200 in match 3 prizes.

The raffle ticket fund generated £1,063,743 ( 6.93% of sales) which was in deficit since it paid out £1,400,000. So £336,257 was taken from the reserve fund to balance the books.

You will find that the total prize cash payout was not £9,512,312 as published by Camelot but £7,236,510 as the Jackpot was included in that total and it wasn't paid out as a prize. It went into the rollover fund instead. THE PRIZE fund was actually £7,627,424 and cash paid out was £7,236,510.

You have said the total pools fund was £2,735,339.35 where did you get this figure from? If it is based on RK … I have already proved that his calculation is wrong so basically all other calculations are wrong too! May be he is another source who works for Camelot and his job is to feedrubbish to us!

No you have NOT proved it wrong, YOU got it wrong by using wrong rules and making simplistic assumptions! I calculated it from my spreadsheet using FACTS given in the new rules (which you did not read).
Non rollover jackpot of £2,275,802 = 83.2% of the pools fund . Therefore the Pools fund = £2,275,802/ 0.832 = £2,735,339.

You have said the prize fund for that particular draw was 17.82%!!!! WHY 17.82% when it should be 45%????? What happened to other 27.8%?????? Stolen perhaps?

I said that :- For the draw in question the POOLS FUND was 17.82% of SALES. This FACT is given in the new rules (which you did not read).
Let me remind you that the POOLS fund is not the PRIZE fund, The Pools fund only pays for the top 4 tiers of prizes. your 'stolen' money pays for the match 3, Match 2 and the raffles. If you'd read the new rules you would have known that wouldn't you ?

If you are genuinely interested in learning how to reconcile Camelot's bookkeeping,(which I doubt) then Learn he difference between Prize Fund, Pools fund and Raffle money fund, Capped prize fund and learn about the Reserve fund.

Let's just have a review of what actually happenned in your post. You demonstrated a complete lack of knowlege of the current prize structure of the UK Lottery, used outdated figures and over simplified assumptions to cut corners and get the WRONG answer for the sales. You seemed quite pleased that you had done so. You then attempted to lecture me on the correct way to do it (to get the WRONG answer), me the person who got the CORRECT answers, despite your wishful thinking to the contrary.

Have you any idea how WIERD that appears Moses ? It is patently obvious to me that you have no interest in being able to understand Camelot’s figures, because to do so would be very inconvenient for you wouldn't it ? It would scupper your 22 year vendetta against Camelot and I think the last thing you want are inconvenient truths, isn't that the case ? I am really fed up of your silly games Moses, asking questions that you do not really want to know the answer to because you've already made your mind up that whatever happens you will swear that Black = White if it will help your case.

It was you that drew me into this thread by mentioning my name regarding something I mentioned in another non related thread. I have deliberately avoided your thread for the past five years because you and I go back a long time and I know what it’s like trying to reason with you. It’s just a waste of valuable time. I'm not going to answer any more stupid questions, life is too short.

The prize pay-out rules used to be printed on the back of the playing slips but not anymore, like everything else the doors and windows are left open for the thieves to take whatever they want and leave some police behind to explain and justify their theft, unless there are some hidden rules that I am not aware of it and if there is I would apologise sincerely when I see it.

They are hidden here:- https://www.national-lottery.co.uk/games/lotto/game-procedures#int_fund where I posted the link you didn't bother to use.
Sections D and E.

We are waiting, Moses ......................................................................

 

[Moses]

Frank, you even deny mathematical facts in order to support Camelot, below is why

Two lottery machines X and Y

In each machine 59 balls
For the first ball falls from the machine X to be the same as the first ball of machine Y is
59 x 59 = 3481 to 1 this is fact or not?
For the ball 2 of machine X to be the same as machine Y, what is the probability for that?
For the ball 3 of machine X to be the same as machine Y, what is the probability for that?

You tell us the rest of the probabilities please, I don’t want to hear that you have generated 2000 random sets of numbers and no other stories, just strictly answer my two questions above with mathematical facts.

In other forum I gave you homework to find out how many pairs, triples and quads have been repeated BUT YOU NEVER ANSWERED IT because there are SOOOOO MANY that defying maths and statistics.

BTW, I thought you said you do NOT read my posts, what changed your mind?

Why didn’t you reply to my post in other forum Frank? Reminder below, you said

Moses,

Let's get the statistics right here. For the number of pairs from 59 balls TAKING ACCOUNT OF ORDER, you have calculated the permutations correctly at 3422. However you have forgotten to mention that each draw of 7 balls creates 21 pairs. So thats 21 chances to try and match another pair elsewhere on every draw. So the odds of a repeated pair TAKING ACCOUNT OF ORDER is 3422/21 = 162.9 to 1. The fact that it ocurred two consecutive draws has no relevance, as the two draws are independent.

I replied


Frank
I agree with you let’s get statistics right BUT I cannot believe that man of science to make a silly mistake as you have done and even though you have made an error then you even dismissed it, why? (3422/21 = 162.9 to 1. The fact that it ocurred two consecutive draws has no relevance)
I would have hoped that you come back and confess to your mistake but I don’t think you really know the difference!

Let’s find your Error

Any 6 from 49 has 13,983,816 right?
Any 6 numbers has 21 wheels, we agree that much, yeah? Short example below

A – B – C – D – E – F – G

A – B
A – C
A – D
A – E
A – F
A – G etc

But and big BUT

A can only make linked -pair with B and not to others that’s what we call LINKED-PAIR
Therefore for A and B to be linked at all time there can only cover 7 possible positions

A – B
X – A – B
X – X – A – B
X – X – X – A – B
X – X – X – X – A – B
X – X – X – X – X – A – B
X – X – X – X – X – X – A – B

So, there are only 7 possible positions available to be covered therefore 3422/7 = 488.8 to 1 which means in every 488 draws (almost 1/5 of the total current draws) we should witness one linked-pair to be repeated in one of the 7 possible positions.
BUT if the linked-pair are drawn in exact location or the same position then 3422/1 = 3422 to 1

Now the same calculation applies for linked-triples and if they are repeated in exact location then that triple are standing chance (from field of 49 numbers) 110544 to 1

Do you understand your mistake Frank?
We are not talking about any pairs or triples anywhere within one sequence as we are talking about LINKED or chained strings of numbers to be drawn in exact locations then the possibility of that should be impossible to happen within 2000 draws. Am I right or am I right?

Just highlight my error please on above statement and tell me where I am wrong BUT you never corrected me!


For others and Frank

Take the UK lotto results from the stars to current results
Click sort (low to high)

Create the same results in reverse order if you can
Click sort (low to high)

Create the same result but this time from centre point and wheel them, example

A – B – C – D – E – F – G ---- D – E – F – G – A – B – C

And revers of that
D – C – B – A – G – F – E

You have four sorted files for the UK standard results then compare them one against others, then most of your repeated triples and others will show up and it will become an obvious fact as you watch and compare the results that sequences are identical to slot machine, two wheels stop but one wheel turn or one wheel stop and two wheels turn.
Once you sort the results a lot of information will come to surface and then you see what Frank is trying to hide is a total concentrated dried Bull***t. That way you can do the maths yourself.

A – B – C – D – E – F – G
Above set or result whatever it maybe has 5040 different presentations, to work the total presentations is
1 x 2 x 3 x 4 x 5 x 6 x 7 = 5040, this is just for 7 numbers 01 to 07 then can you imagine with 59 numbers for each string of 7 numbers then how many possible presentations there are? If my calculations are right it would be 1.71 trillion presentations!

So, the probability of every pair or triples or quads to be repeated in exact locations should be extremely low but they are keep coming!

Moses

 

[Frank]

Another smokescreen Moses? I'm not playing your silly games. In the other forum I explained the square law of compared databases ( where the probability of any event is proportional to the square of the number of old results you are comparing with each other). So for the UK lottery you were cherry picking any draw to compare with any other draw that took your fancy over about 2000 draws. So the probability of an event, ANY EVENT needed to be multiplied by 2000 X 2000 = 4 MILLION! This also led to the fact that the odds of that same event happening within your database were reduced by 2000.

So the so called anomalies you highlighted, which you said should not happen because of the enormous odds, were actually quite common because those 'impossible odds' were 2000 times less than you tried to make people think.

You also have never used a control set to which you have applied the same level is scrutiny as you have the UK Lottery. I explained to you that this was necessary to validate any research, and made available spreadsheets that prove that any set of random 749 numbers in drawn order ( source random.org) behaved in the same way as the UK lottery having the same number of ' impossible matches' between old results - number for number, in order, but you did not want to hear this.
All of the above was an inconvenient truth that you did not wish to discuss, and it was noted that you left the thread without further comment.

You mentioned these impossible odds in this forum too, but I let that pass here, because I really can't be bothered wasting my time talking to you. I have nothing to prove, it is YOU who has to prove what you say. In 22 years I have to say that I have never seen one iota of evidence of anything from you.

So please don't waste time setting me tests, in the hope that I will make some mistake you can gloat over, because that is not going to happen.

If anyone other than Moses is interested in the reduced odds of triples etc. matching each other in drawn order when you compare N old lotto results, each with the other, please say so and I will post the evidence.

 

[bloubul]

Frank

I'm very interested. And thanks to point out the flaws of our friend Moses.

BlouBul

 

[Frank]

Thank you Bloubul. I shall start a thread on the topic in the near future.

 

[Moses]

Thank you Bloubul. I shall start a thread on the topic in the near future.

2000 x 2000 = 4,000,000 results to compare?

This is 4000 tons of horse-s**t you are throwing

From one forum to another you change your mind and contradict yourself, this is what you wrote in other forum (The fact that it ocurred two consecutive draws has no relevance, as the two draws are independent)
When two draws are independent then it means you can compare two results from the same history against the statistics so you don’t go and create another 2000 results then compare 2000 against 2000 result! What a stupid thing to suggest. I said that you throw any crap possible to prove me wrong and to protect Camelot, now you proved me right!

Let’s start again

I drop my findings on forum totally FREE OF CHARGE
Some read and pass by
Some stop and agree with the concept of the information
Some participate and emphasis and share my view
Some they think they find Gold Mine like bloubul and when they don’t win they get angry and nasty about it
And some they want to prove me wrong like you and Gill-D.
I know you don’t have any study on other lotteries apart from main draw! I also know you don’t even keep result for other games so that you could compare the results one to another but still insist that I and my information is wrong despite the fact and knowing I keep all results!
Above situation reminds me from this forum http://www.network54.com/Forum/100000 and Douglas Burns. Do you remember him and what he said about you, Dr Anselm, Jonpe and some others?
He said you are all either one person and pretending to be different or you are all flat-mates whereas your IP address leads to the same location!
Ever since I kept that in my mind about you which was nearly 15 years ago and now you have proved that Douglas Burns was right.
Obviously you must have problem with me and what I write so you must be an agent and have your orders to prove me wrong.
In other thread you accused bloubul for giving away your information to others but now you two are best of pals, good for both of you!

 

[Frank]

2000 x 2000 = 4,000,000 results to compare?
This is 4000 tons of horse-s**t you are throwing

Prove me wrong then. In the meantime I’ll give you a clue. You have 2000 tickets for todays draws. There just happens to be 2000 draws being held today and all your tickets are valid for all the draws. How does this improve your chances of a win ? That’s what you are doing Moses.

From one forum to another you change your mind and contradict yourself, this is what you wrote in other forum (The fact that it ocurred two consecutive draws has no relevance, as the two draws are independent)

I see no contradiction. It’s a fact.

When two draws are independent then it means you can compare two results from the same history against the statistics so you don’t go and create another 2000 results then compare 2000 against 2000 result! What a stupid thing to suggest.

Well you invented the concept Moses, criticising yourself now ?

I said that you throw any crap possible to prove me wrong and to protect Camelot, now you proved me right!)

That’ll be the day when I prove YOU right! Its not about Camelot, YOU are making it about Camelot. I'm talking about random numbers! The Uk lottery is just an example of random numbers.

For others and Frank
Take the UK lotto results from the stars to current results
Click sort (low to high)

Create the same results in reverse order if you can
Click sort (low to high)

Create the same result but this time from centre point and wheel them, example

A – B – C – D – E – F – G ----? D – E – F – G – A – B – C

And revers of that
D – C – B – A – G – F – E

You have four sorted files for the UK standard results then compare them one against others, then most of your repeated triples and others will show up and it will become an obvious fact as you
watch and compare the results that sequences are identical to slot machine, two wheels stop but one wheel turn or one wheel stop and two wheels turn.
Once you sort the results a lot of information will come to surface and then you see what Frank is trying to hide is a total concentrated dried Bull***t. That way you can do the maths yourself.

A – B – C – D – E – F – G
Above set or result whatever it maybe has 5040 different presentations, to work the total presentations is 1 x 2 x 3 x 4 x 5 x 6 x 7 = 5040, this is just for 7 numbers 01 to 07 then can you imagine with 59 numbers for each string of 7 numbers then how many possible presentations there are? If my calculations are right it would be 1.71 trillion presentations!

So, the probability of every pair or triples or quads to be repeated in exact locations should be extremely low but they are keep coming!

Fine ! All I would ask of you Moses, or anyone else who is interested is to do exactly as you describe above, that's great. Now do it again with an equal number of draws taken from Random.org. Now compare the two sets of results. What do you conclude ?
The Truth is out there!

I know you don’t have any study on other lotteries apart from main draw! I also know you don’t even keep result for other games so that you could compare the results one to another but still insist that I and my information is wrong despite the fact and knowing I keep all results!

Moses, as I have told you lots of times over the years:- to check on lottery behaviour, you require a CONTROL GROUP of random numbers to compare your research with and put it in context. You have repeatedly refused to do this, which means you are effectively wearing blinkers. Eyes nailed on the UK lotto and affiliates and you cannot look away at random numbers! I work with the UK Lottery and RANDOM NUMBERS which are my control, so I would know if anything was amiss in the UK lotto behaviour. You have made your mind up and are not prepared to look at random behaviour to put your work in context. Therefore you cannot possibly know whether what you see is normal or not.

Above situation reminds me from this forum http://www.network54.com/Forum/100000 and Douglas Burns. Do you remember him and what he said about you, Dr Anselm, Jonpe and some others?
He said you are all either one person and pretending to be different or you are all flat-mates whereas your IP address leads to the same location!
Ever since I kept that in my mind about you which was nearly 15 years ago and now you have proved that Douglas Burns was right.
Obviously you must have problem with me and what I write so you must be an agent and have your orders to prove me wrong.
In other thread you accused bloubul for giving away your information to others but now you two are best of pals, good for both of you!

Let me get this clear, this discussion is not about whether your theories are correct? Its about anyone who does research and wishes to make their findings public. If their research happens to differ from yours it’s because they are part of a conspiracy, they are incognito, They are secret agents ? With multiple identities? Perhaps I'm Lord Lucan or Jimmy Hoffa ? Could I be both ? And in League with Camelot ? You haven't seen me post anything complimentary about Camelot in recent years.

Apparently such people are against you and its personal, is that the case ?
It’s not that I just happen to be an ordinary guy then, interested in lottery analysis, who finds things out and like you, wants to share the information but unlike you can prove it ?
You seem desperate to silence me, so it appears you do not wish people to have a balanced view, have an open mind, to be able to make an informed decision for themselves ? Why don't you allow readers to decide what they think is believable, instead of looking for excuses to find fault with your "opponent"?
I am not your opponent Moses, let me remind you that I had no intention of getting involved with you in this forum, despite being here for five years. However, YOU found an excuse to draw me in here, because I had the audacity to publish some proof in another quieter forum ( which would be less embarrassing for you) which you found inconvenient and you wanted revenge. I have to tell you that YOU are your own worst enemy because you do yourself no favours by behaving like this.

Yes I do remember Douglas Burns and his nonsensical musings. He knew as little about IP addresses at the turn of the century as you apparently do. For your information (you should remember this) the vast majority of internet users were on DIAL UP internet. Remember that ? I was on AOL, and it was common knowledge that AOL used proxy servers to route their customers to websites. This meant that literally thousands of customers all had the same IP address. You don't have to take my word for it - it’s a matter of record. Check out this Wikipedia page :-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AOL scroll down to Why are AOL users often blocked? and read on from ...........However, an AOL user editing Wikipedia without an account cannot be uniquely identified.................

That's why we had similar or the same IP addresses. It’s a shame you didn't research this earlier, I could have saved you from years of panonoia.

It’s a shame you wish to drag Bloubul into all this, just because he posted. He unlike you has an open mind and wishes to learn new things. He dared to comment and now he is your opponent too ? Readers will take note of this. I'm not surprised this thread was quiet prior to your outburst about popular numbers, if anyone says anything that is not in total admiration of your theories they get intimidated!

You really should let your proof - backed up with results from control groups do your talking Moses, instead of looking for negatives in other people who wish to enlighten others. That will never give you any credibility, prove your theories or gain you respect from readers. Quite the opposite in fact.

 

[LT]

This discussion seems to have attracted some higher than normal temperatures.

Numbers are passionate particularity when it comes to the lottery.

I would respectfully suggest that it is certainly acceptable to agree to disagree on any topic.

LT

 

[Moses]

To some people these are all just pure accident however that it is rather impossible to occur in two separate independent results but to some others is a lesson to be learned!

First very latest Euro result
03/05/2016, 23,34,08,24,38,03,07

Second TB result next again day
04/05/2016, 38,03,04,21,31,11

And finally Lotto result the same day right after TB draw
04/05/2016, 20,03,04,21,01,02,22

38,03 had delivered in Euro and wheel stops, this wheel restarts in TB and combines it to third and forth wheels which is 04,21 and stops then the same triple repeats in Lotto in exact location!
Now, check this out for digital endings, 04,21 comes with 31 in TB and 01 in Lotto, let check the history of lotto results then we have
15/08/2015, 08,10,49,04,21,41,28 ---- Lotto result with digital ending 41

If we drop one digit from left and start the search for the remaining pair in history of all results then what we have is continues loop which links all the games together and then you can find all your missing numbers which have been absent for while in different games
It is as obvious as sunshine that software had cut short and jumped from one string to another just like you get nudge in slot machine, hold two numbers and let the next wheel turn! Yeah, these strange statistical sequences are all accidents of course!

In Len’s forum Frank has mentioned that number 45 has not been drawn in UK lotto results since 30/09/2015 and he expects it to be drawn very soon. Well, I have news for Frank whereas number 45 has been drawn in number of occasions in other results, below
01/10/2015,26,10,45,33,01,30 ----- Health Lottery next again day from lotto
24/10/2015,09,03,20,28,11,45
06/11/2015,49,43,31,16,45,39
07/11/2015,45,15,31,49,35,10 ----- Next draw
11/11/2015,43,33,41,45,05,15
01/12/2015,25,46,20,31,45,19
12/01/2016,17,29,45,46,05,43
20/01/2016,28,26,12,17,20,45
26/01/2016,07,05,37,42,45,20
06/02/2016,07,30,41,45,50,08
25/02/2016,03,40,46,09,45,25
01/03/2016,45,16,36,29,27,50

Sharp eyes cannot miss out the digital endings in vertical columns
Column 01, (09,49),(07,17),(43,03),(25,45)
Column 02, (03,43,33),(10,30,40),(15,05)
Column 03, (20,20),(31,31),(41,41),(46,36)
Column 04, (49,09,29)
Column 05, (01,11),(05,35,45),(20,50)
Column 06, (30,10,20,50),(15,25,45),(39,19)

It is really funny ever since I mentioned that lotto numbers are generated on
A - B - ? - D or
A - ? - C - D
Camelot stopped producing Euro million's results in drawn order!!

Moses