New Breakthrough system
- Thread starter lottosync
- Start date
Welcome again luckyhorse
Member
well i made the purchase on this lottosync software $136 dollars ouch!!!! but curiosity got the best of me they are going to send me the url monday so i can receive my download will keep you updated on the success of this system!!!! sincerely your lotto system junky luckyhorse!
LottoSync:
We are sick and tired of false claims.
Please take this opportunity to show us what you can really do
. This is your best chance to win or loose your best chance for customers right here.
I'd like to see results from proper regression testing performed from the past 2,000 draws (#61 to #2060) in Canadian 6/49 should do it... ...you will have to obtain perfect and 100% reliable data first. If you don't have it, I can give you a copy. Then you do the following...
1. pretend you don't know the results.
2. do your processing and compare and report on the results to see how good or poor things turned out.
3. post the results here so we can see.
Then we would like to see real live results for 10 draws in a row (predictions before the draw results and after the cutoff time, there is a window of 30 minutes to post your stuff). What you do is post predictions at 21:00 EST on the day scheduled for each draw. This way you don't give away anything and prove your claims. Deal?
As you can see, I'm interested in the real proof as others here would like as well.
Regards,
George
We are sick and tired of false claims.
Please take this opportunity to show us what you can really do
. This is your best chance to win or loose your best chance for customers right here.I'd like to see results from proper regression testing performed from the past 2,000 draws (#61 to #2060) in Canadian 6/49 should do it... ...you will have to obtain perfect and 100% reliable data first. If you don't have it, I can give you a copy. Then you do the following...
1. pretend you don't know the results.
2. do your processing and compare and report on the results to see how good or poor things turned out.
3. post the results here so we can see.
Then we would like to see real live results for 10 draws in a row (predictions before the draw results and after the cutoff time, there is a window of 30 minutes to post your stuff). What you do is post predictions at 21:00 EST on the day scheduled for each draw. This way you don't give away anything and prove your claims. Deal?
As you can see, I'm interested in the real proof as others here would like as well.
Regards,
George
lottosync said:
Last edited:
Brad
Member
How about this ...
Lottosync,
Backwards testing is a fine tool/indicator no doubt ... I use it often myself. However, you doing the report on any known lotto history harks back to believability, especially when players are asked to shell out more than a hundred large (Cdn) for new software. My guess is that you've already had more negative than positive responses to your posts.
The trial is a better approach IMO, even if it takes longer, you may be onto something new here and the fact that you're willing to endure public scrutiny
is a good first step.
Having said all that
I'd like to see some regression test results too whether for the Belgian or other lottos. I understand the original claim was the ability to hit 3/10, 90% of the time.
I am willing to buy your system for 1/2 the advertised cost, do the regression testing on 100 draws of BC49 lotto (or more) and post the results on this forum.
Even if the results support only 1/2 your claim, ie: 45% or more of the preds score at least 3/10, bonus excluded, I will pay you the remainder and recommend the system.
If not, your sw will end up in my 'special' file for programs that did not live up to their promise (I have a few). I'll be out some cash and the report will speak for itself.
I think that even though it may seem to be flippant at first glance, my offer has merit.
Cheers
Lottosync,
Backwards testing is a fine tool/indicator no doubt ... I use it often myself. However, you doing the report on any known lotto history harks back to believability, especially when players are asked to shell out more than a hundred large (Cdn) for new software. My guess is that you've already had more negative than positive responses to your posts.
The trial is a better approach IMO, even if it takes longer, you may be onto something new here and the fact that you're willing to endure public scrutiny
is a good first step.
Having said all that
I'd like to see some regression test results too whether for the Belgian or other lottos. I understand the original claim was the ability to hit 3/10, 90% of the time. I am willing to buy your system for 1/2 the advertised cost, do the regression testing on 100 draws of BC49 lotto (or more) and post the results on this forum.
Even if the results support only 1/2 your claim, ie: 45% or more of the preds score at least 3/10, bonus excluded, I will pay you the remainder and recommend the system.
If not, your sw will end up in my 'special' file for programs that did not live up to their promise (I have a few). I'll be out some cash and the report will speak for itself.
I think that even though it may seem to be flippant at first glance, my offer has merit.
Cheers
lottosync said:
There is no such system lottosync.
Every system makes something. But you know what is "something" only after using the system. You came here telling your system is very good, but there's no possibility for users of this board to check that. No trial version, ...
So there's only one possibility: to trust you and to buy it. Then to use it.
As lottery is a *play in future*, and not a play in the past, your system has unknown success to us.
Even we don't know if it worked better than expected in last 10 draws... and how much better?
Why to buy it? It's better to use our hints, best bets, or pick randomly from Picks thread, one set of others players of this forum ... they are free and prooved to hit!
Frank
Hello lottosync / guru.
I think you said somewhere this is a group effort.
So are all you guys software gurus?
If it is a company product...does this company specialize in this area?
Just would like to know a bit more about the group / outfit that put this together more for credability.
Regards,
Irvin
At the end of the day nothing is impossible. So maybe what you say is possible.
I think you said somewhere this is a group effort.
So are all you guys software gurus?
If it is a company product...does this company specialize in this area?
Just would like to know a bit more about the group / outfit that put this together more for credability.
Regards,
Irvin
At the end of the day nothing is impossible. So maybe what you say is possible.
There are only 2 people in our company. My collegue and me. however, we do work with freelancers most of the time. Our main occupation is 3d computer animation for the Belgian and France television. We do also develop our custom 3d software plugins.
The LottoSynchronizer project was not a commercial idea. We were just playing lotto and wondered if there was a way to predict numbers (that's already 2,5 years ago now). Our first systems we created were basicly the same as other soft with "hot, cold, sums, odd-even" you know. But we dumped these since they showed no concistency over time. After this, we tried the combinatorial approach. With succes, we made a system that won the Belgian lotto (that's if we had used it for real). Problem of that system was the amount of combinations to play. It was expensive and risky, so we did not do it.
Realizing that the only affordable way to win lotto (without risking to go financially bankrupt) was to know the numbers at forehand. At that time we studied the past draws intensively and experimented with random number generating scripts. That's the moment where we first got our clues of what we know now. (I'm confident that we'll know even a lot more next year). We noticed a strange similarity between computer generated random numbers and real lotto draws under the right conditions. This led us (after almost another year of hard work) to the methods we use now in Lotto Synchronizer.
The LottoSynchronizer project was not a commercial idea. We were just playing lotto and wondered if there was a way to predict numbers (that's already 2,5 years ago now). Our first systems we created were basicly the same as other soft with "hot, cold, sums, odd-even" you know. But we dumped these since they showed no concistency over time. After this, we tried the combinatorial approach. With succes, we made a system that won the Belgian lotto (that's if we had used it for real). Problem of that system was the amount of combinations to play. It was expensive and risky, so we did not do it.
Realizing that the only affordable way to win lotto (without risking to go financially bankrupt) was to know the numbers at forehand. At that time we studied the past draws intensively and experimented with random number generating scripts. That's the moment where we first got our clues of what we know now. (I'm confident that we'll know even a lot more next year). We noticed a strange similarity between computer generated random numbers and real lotto draws under the right conditions. This led us (after almost another year of hard work) to the methods we use now in Lotto Synchronizer.
gsobier said:LottoSync:
We are sick and tired of false claims.
Please take this opportunity to show us what you can really do
I'd like to see results from proper regression testing performed from the past 2,000 draws (#61 to #2060) in Canadian 6/49 should do it... ...you will have to obtain perfect and 100% reliable data first. If you don't have it, I can give you a copy. Then you do the following...
1. pretend you don't know the results.
2. do your processing and compare and report on the results to see how good or poor things turned out.
3. post the results here so we can see.
Then we would like to see real live results for 10 draws in a row (predictions before the draw results and after the cutoff time, there is a window of 30 minutes to post your stuff). What you do is post predictions at 21:00 EST on the day scheduled for each draw. This way you don't give away anything and prove your claims. Deal?
As you can see, I'm interested in the real proof as others here would like as well.
Regards,
George
George,
you can make a similar program. You are the programmer, you know this system uses 3 last draws and pick numbers by "randomness", so to pick 10 numbers can be like this:
1- how many numbers to pick from 3 last draws (amount=X)?
2- to choose randomly X numbers from last 3 draws!
3- to choose randomly 10-X numbers from 49-X numbers.
To get the first step, we have to choose *if* with bonus or without bonus.
Let's see without bonus. 18 numbers are the superior limit. Now we have to make an assumption: if the amount of numbers of last 3 draws is 16-18, that means 1 or 2 numbers repeated, Pick 3 numbers from last 3 draws. If the amount is < 14 there are more numbers repeating, Pick 4 (5?) numbers from last 3 draws.
And you can put the amount of prime numbers, you want.
So, I've seen many ideas here before, that can make a good choice in this case and give a good forecasting of last 3 draws numbers. It's only to put one in practice (in the alghorithm). A new discussion may be needed.
The fact that computers usually cannot get random numbers, is not important here because, the other program is surely computer based too.
Frank
Frank:
To go a bit deeper, you have to read between the lines... ...a random number generator is a standard function in the programming language I use. Its the programmers responsibility to manage the rules.
Therefore, on its own, like you have been lead to believe, a computer can't. Its up to how good the programmer is using the resources and logic to manage the environment and criteria.
I have reports which normalize data (make sense of it as much as possible). I think they are barking up the wrong tree on this one, we will see.
I asked them to report on 2,000 draws because we will see if the results they have seen were a fluke or not. I have results which are not a fluke and took weeks of non-stop processing to discover the very best reports by processing more than 2,000 draws. I cut my limit to 1,000 draws of history so it was simply more manageable and not so demanding on CPU and time running.
Regards,
George
To go a bit deeper, you have to read between the lines... ...a random number generator is a standard function in the programming language I use. Its the programmers responsibility to manage the rules.
Therefore, on its own, like you have been lead to believe, a computer can't. Its up to how good the programmer is using the resources and logic to manage the environment and criteria
.I have reports which normalize data (make sense of it as much as possible). I think they are barking up the wrong tree on this one, we will see.
I asked them to report on 2,000 draws because we will see if the results they have seen were a fluke or not. I have results which are not a fluke and took weeks of non-stop processing to discover the very best reports by processing more than 2,000 draws. I cut my limit to 1,000 draws of history so it was simply more manageable and not so demanding on CPU and time running.
Regards,
George