Random Number Generators (revisited)

[lottoarchitect]

Perfect.

Just to post my two cents here because all of you speak correctly.
Let's define randomness loosely first because this is the reason for the mess.
Randomness in a system is the reason we cannot obtain any information for future events, even if we have all the information of the past. The reason for this is pretty simple: zillions of uncontrolled and unkown factors that can affect the outcome of the result. Perfect, this is just fine, cool. Also applies to lotteries I could say. So does that means lotteries are random?

Think a bit of the next argument:

In real-machine draws, do you know that the numbers always come in the same order in the tubes? Has anyone ever thought that this particular initial condition alone is a very good reason for bias in the outcome of draws? If bias exists because of this (and probably exists), then not all numbers have equal chance to occur which means each one combination definitely has different chance to occur from other combinations.
In pure random systems 1 2 3 4 5 6 has the exact same chance to occur with any other combination. In lotteries, if bias exist this is not true which means the system is not purely random. And if a system is not purely random, then there is a hope to trap this to evaluate future events, at least partially. Also, using entropy, given the very low entropy of the initial condition (it is very organized), the system always tend to move to higher entropy which is the rule of nature. By this argument alone, I do not expect 1 2 3 4 5 6 to occur as often as any other combination. I do not violate math laws now because simply the draws are not purely random events because they are biased. This is my humble opinion on the subject of lotteries.

The case is exactly the same with PRNG systems. The outcome is deterministic, no matter how complex they might make the procedure. Simply put, the result is not random. The only problem is that we cannot know what function/seed/iterrations or whatever they apply but still the system is not purely random.

And just a question for thinking to everyone: will you play for 80 years or as you long as you live the same draw that comes at the previous draw and expect to win even if you believe draws are totally random? I doubt.

Now you can continue your arguments but keep in mind the above.

cheers
lottoarchitect

 

[GillesD]

Random or not????

To winhunter

I tend to agree with Rob50 about the 1-2-3-4-5-6 combination. It is one of the possible 13,983,816 combinations that will come out eventually. And I also see some contradictions in your two statements:
A – You say you would not want to buy blindly a combination like 1-2-3-4-5-6.
B – You say that with your program “you can develop a "formula" and see how well it performed against the history” and that “the history is the "signature" of that game itself”.

Why do I see a contradiction in this? To me, the 1-2-3-4-5-6 combination is like any other one but with a very obvious formula: an initial number A (which happen to be 1) followed by 5 other numbers always increasing by a constant second number B (which also happen to be 1 in this case). Given time, a powerful computer and good programming skills, a formula (may be a little more complicated, I agree) could most likely be developed for most combinations.

But then, if you put that formula into your program, you could get some surprises. A winning combination with the formula A, A+1xB, A+2xB, A+3xB, A+4xB and A+5xB for the 6 numbers has already occurred in the Canadian Lotto 6/49 (and quite early in its history). I will let you look it over for the values of A and B. So if, as you say, the history is the signature of the game, then if it DID happen in the past, then it CAN happen again in the future. So the 1-2-3-4-5-6 combination should not be rejected for such simple reasons like it looks odd, it is too regular, it is unlikely to come out or whatever.

But I agree I would not pick these numbers because, when it does come out eventually, it will be with a very low return as it is known that this combination is one of the most often chosen by players.

And by the way, what do you think of the winning combination for draw #2237 with 19-42-43-44-46-47. Wow, 5 numbers in the same decade. Obviously such a combination should never be played. After all, there are only 44,352 such combinations. Yet, if you look at the history of Lotto 6/49, it is the seventh time that such a “bad” combination comes out. So maybe we can forget about what is a good or a bad combination.

But actually, it is true to expectations: 44,352 represents only 0.317% of all combinations but the 7 winning combinations with 5 numbers in the same decade represents, oddly enough, 0.313% of the 2237 winning combinations. Not a big difference by any means. But take any formula (ratios of even/odd numbers, ratios of low/high number, spreads between low and high numbers, splits of consecutive numbers, last digit occurrences, splits into decade, etc.) and most likely, the difference between actual result and theorical value will be less than 1%. To my knowledge, combinations with sums between 101 and 120 are under represented by 2.3%, one of the highest differences between actual and theorical values for any formula.


To lottoarchitect

You indicate that “the draws are not purely random events because they are biased” and based on the given law of nature on entropy, the system “always tend to move to higher entropy” and from that you conclude that you “do not expect 1 2 3 4 5 6 to occur as often as any other combination”. Maybe, but we must not forget that 2,237 draws represents only 0.0160% of all combinations. I find this a little bit early to talk about definite bias (although up to now higher numbers have a small tendency to come out a little more often that expected). And maybe I could conclude that, based on the well known law of average (also quite present in nature), we can expect lower numbers to start coming out (for which the 1-2-3-4-5-6 combination is the extreme case).

And hao about playing the same numbers as the last draw. Why not? If you had done this in Canadian Lotto 6/49, you would have got:
- 0 number right: 43.5% of the times compared to 43.6% in theory
- 1 number right: 41.1% of the times compared to 41.3% in theory
- 2 numbers right: 13.6% of the times compared to 13.2% in theory
- 3 numbers right: 1.74% of the times compared to 1.77% in theory
- 4 numbers right: 0.04% of the times compared to 0.10% in theory
- 5 numbers right: 0.000% of the times compared to 0.002% in theory
- 6 numbers right: 0.000% of the times compared to 0.000% in theory

So basically this is as good as any combinations unless you are quite lucky and get the RIGHT one. But this is what lottery is all about: LUCK.

 

[winhunter]

Biased

LottoArchitect hit the nail on the head when he mentioned this (subject line).

Same load order, identical ball size/weight, same relative ambient atmospheric conditions, etc. A fixed, or relatively fixed set of inputs will generate a biased output. We simply do not see the biased because there is not enough data.

GillesD
As for the "formula" I was referring to, it is not a mathematical calculation as you demonstrated, but a stack design which reacts to conditions which occur in the past history of the lottery being predicted itself.

What WINHunter is attempting to do, is utilize the machine's suspected natural bias against itself and eliminate numbers from the overall pool of numbers available.


As for ways of determining how to best calculate the success of WINHunter, I have yet to have someone really help to nail down a method of determining how successful WINHunter is with a history file. Keep in mind, WINHunter is primarily designed to target Jackpot wins, not prize tiers. So a 100% successful prediction is for the Qty of predicted numbers to match exactly the Qty of numbers required to play the game, and for those predicted numbers to match exactly. Relative Success is also calculated using this same method, which includes the Qty of matches to the actual Jackpot numbers drawn. Make sense? The formula was posted on RGL a long while back if your interested, and perhaps even posted here. Just search RGL for "winhunter", the thread was called "What Constitutes A Satisfactory Prediction Rate?".

As for my logic behind 1-2-3-4-5-6, those are the first 6 balls out of the chute when the machine is loaded. Since the balls are being mixed, one would guestimate that the likelyhood of the balls being drawn in exactly the same order as they fell into the machine is the least likeliest of all. Im no math whiz (which explains why WINHunter is not geared towards statistics). But my understanding of probability, the likelihood of the balls being drawn out of the machine in the same order they were loaded far greater than that of any other random sequence (this was also discussed elsewhere by some math whizes, probably again on RGL).

To make the point of machine bias, in the case of the Florida Lottery, a 5 of 6 sequence has already been drawn twice, whereas thousands of other 5 of 6 sequences have yet to be drawn.

Randomness... I once read an article about coin tosses, and that even though it is totally random, that the likelihood of more than 6 in a row is so great, that it never happens. Even in a coin toss, a bias exists. It is biases like this that WINhunter attempts to explore, based upon seemingly random past draw history. The same article went on to say that a certain College professor, knowing that more than 6 in a row was virtually impossible, would fail his students if their 100 toss test results contained more than 6 in a row!

we can argue randomness all day long, but the fact of the matter is that all we have to go on is the lottery history itself. Oddly enough, WINhunter has displayed some interesting characteristics from lottery history, where there are periods of seemingly random predictions that never prevail, but suddenly a windfall of matching predictions occurs. Luck? Nope. The machine's own bias tells on itself in these cases.

Also, as lottoarchitect pointed out, no lottery in it's history (to my knowledge) has ever had a succeeding draw that contained the same identical numbers from the previous draw. Statistically, those numbers have the SAME chances of being drawn, but in fact, do not get drawn at all. As lottoarchitect suspects, none of you play last week's drawn numbers.

As for machine bias and randomness, I think the two are coupled in there together and that is what makes lottery preciction so difficult, is knowing what data is machine bias and what data is random noise. I firmly believe that WINHunter demonstrates that soem data is noise, and other data is machine bias. Which data is what though *shrug*, your guess is as good as mine.

So maybe we can forget about what is a good or a bad combination.

WINhunter does not predict combinations, only raw numbers. It does not calculate or review combinations, at all, only number performance absed upon simplistic tracking methods.

Can Winhunter explain with sound mathematical arguments

First, can you explain what a "sound mathematical argument" is?
Second, WINhunter is not based upon what I believe you mean to be "sound mathematical arguments". WINHunter calculates number performance and generates scores from those performance characteristics, and then those scores are processed by a selection method, which weeds out score values and generates the predicted number set. Where WINHunter differs from other prediction engines, is that selection methods can feed into each other, and processing methods can run in paralell, against differing amounts of lottery history. Couple this with the ability to "trigger" functions within a filter stack, and you have a dynamic prediction engine, that reacts on its own to historical data. There is no "hocus pocus" inside WINhunter, just simple arithmetic and alot of if-then statements.



Andrew

 

[Rob50]

First, can you explain what a "sound mathematical argument" is?

Winhunter, absolutely no offence intended, but have you ever been in high school? If yes, you should know the answer, if no or you have forgotten, or you did not understand then, most likely you would not understand now.



Im no math whiz (which explains why WINHunter is not geared towards statistics).

Winhunter, making this kind of sincere admission you totally destroy your own credibility in correct understanding of mathematical terms like "probability", "bias", "randomness" etc. You simply use them in the biased meaning you understand them. Again, no offence intended.

I dare you and whoever else on a bet of whatever amount of money:

For a year, i.e 104 6/49 draws in a row: I will pick two lines:

1 2 3 4 5 6 and the line from the previous draw, you also pick two lines, you are free to change them as you please every draw. I don't care how you pick them, randomly or you "predict" them with your winhunter. If at the end of the year you have performed better then my bad lines I will pay you the amount of the bet. We have to determine a little better what "perform better" means (in terms of money, or in terms of correct results) and if you want after that we are on. The only thing I require is that those two lines be posted 24 hours before the draw so I will have the possibility to confirm them with a post before the draw.

 

[lottoarchitect]

Well Rob50,

I have been to high school, I have been to maths university, I have been to computer science university, I have been to math books for many years and I never faced the term "sound mathematical argument". Do you mean "formal mathematical argument", which is simply the strict mathematical representation of what we say? If indeed there is such a terminology, please guide me where I can find information about this as I cannot believe my professors hide such things from us in a maths university!!
The only sound thing is the sound software engineering but you do not refer to this, do you?

As for your bet, you have time to reconsider. I have made some statistical analysis of the last year of the Greek game Lotto 6/49. In a set of 100 last draws (usually 2 draws/week) which makes up 1 year.
Results :
1 2 3 4 5 6: found only 1-#3 match
Last draw: 1-#4 & 1-#3 (also note in the last 1200 draws [1st draw was on 5/12/1990!!] this was the only 1-#4 match found and 13-#3 hits!)

So, your overall winnings are 2-#3 and 1-#4 in one year (and this one by accident). I think I can do better even by luck compared to this without the use of analysis (no I do not participate in the bet). Even this alone should tell you something.

No offence of course.
lottoarchitect

 

[winhunter]

Rob50

First, can you explain what a "sound mathematical argument" is?

Winhunter, absolutely no offence intended, but have you ever been in high school? If yes, you should know the answer, if no or you have forgotten, or you did not understand then, most likely you would not understand now.

First, I understand perfectly what it is, but I wanted to know what you meant by your use of it. WINHunter uses as basic of programming style as possible to make it easy for a user who knows rudamentary basic programming to pick up and do what he wants with it. As for offence, the very fact that you asked such a rediculous question is an insult. But hey, this is the internet, nothing new to me here. I doubt you meant it as an insult, you were just curious as to why I would ask.

Im no math whiz (which explains why WINHunter is not geared towards statistics).

Winhunter, making this kind of sincere admission you totally destroy your own credibility in correct understanding of mathematical terms like "probability", "bias", "randomness" etc. You simply use them in the biased meaning you understand them. Again, no offence intended.

You only view it as a strike against credibility because you yourself seem to require that others have a sound knowledge of things in order to talk about them. WINHunter is not designed around the usage of probability calculations. Interesting. Who says you have to have a sound knowledge of anything in order to be proficient at it? There is plenty of probability software out there that generates predictions based upon probability. That lottery software wheel doesnt need re-inventing (yet). Discussion combinations is a mute point to me, as I have mentioned already that WINHunter is designed to allow the user to filter out as many numbers as possible, with the ultimate goal being that you still can capture the jackpot. The calculations for a 3if6 from 20 wheel serve no purpose to me, or to how WINHunter works. Do I understand them? Yes. Would I take the time to learn them fluently if I had to use them, sure. But since I have no need for that, why bother.

As far as understanding goes, WEBSTERS does a fine job for most people at explaining things.

Again, no offence taken. (odd though you appologize twice, obviously knowing what you said would be offensive, yet you posted anyway)

I dare you and whoever else on a bet of whatever amount of money:

For a year, i.e 104 6/49 draws in a row: I will pick two lines:

1 2 3 4 5 6 and the line from the previous draw, you also pick two lines, you are free to change them as you please every draw. I don't care how you pick them, randomly or you "predict" them with your winhunter. If at the end of the year you have performed better then my bad lines I will pay you the amount of the bet. We have to determine a little better what "perform better" means (in terms of money, or in terms of correct results) and if you want after that we are on. The only thing I require is that those two lines be posted 24 hours before the draw so I will have the possibility to confirm them with a post before the draw.

WINHunter has already been field tested. So has most other software to date by the very performance (or lack of) by their users. Even I can accept the fact that in playing the lottery, you are almost guarenteed to lose. I have never claimed that WINHunter was the Holy Grail of prediction software, so there is no need for me to prove anything, or for me to gain anything. Besides that, WINHunter is freeware. I already took the greater risk in developing it and putting it on public display to withstand scrutiny such as yours. I dont think you are aware, but WINHunter was designed with the Jackpot in mind, not lower tier prize levels (that functionality was added by request of users here). Thus, WINHunter's performance cannot be gauged by how well it does on lower tier prizes, but on how well it can predict as few numbers as possible, that still contain the winning numbers. It's a differet tool and it's not for everybody. WINHunter in and of itself cannot truly produce winning results, that instead, rests upon the patience and the perseverance of the user themselves. Point, Click & Win WINHunter isnt.

I wrote the first WINHunter for my own use, and then put it out for public use. I then grew quickly tired of the limited options of the first design, and thus wrote the latest version with a ton of help and input from the users here.

As for anything I say having any bearing on me personally... As most of the regulars here know, that is me. I am totally honest, and always have been. I have nothing to hide. IF you dont like something about WINHunter, rip what you want and expand on the sourcecode, it's freely available.

On a more personal note, I tip my hat to anyone who has ever endevored to take on the task of even attempting to come up with some notion or method to predict lotteries and share it with others. It takes alot of guts and alot of courage to even fathom to attempt to do the seemingly impossible. Even users here who post predictions day in and day out. Their predictions attest to the success/failure rate of their processes. And yet, we all pursue on.

 

[Rob50]

Hey, lottoarchitect

My question was directed to winhunter, but since you want one there it is:

Did you graduate from the schools (universities) or you just took courses? Because the problem is that people with one blind eye see the reality, but does not perceive the third dimension.

You say that in the last 100 draws of greek lottery you found only one match of 3 # from 123456. First do you know that the probability for a set of 3 numbers to show up in a 6/49 line is only 1/54, so in 100 draws you would expect a little less then 2. So it is fine. Because some sound mathematical calculations will show you that in average each combination of 3 # will show up 1.85185 times in 100 lines. Assuming that this quantity is normaly distributed (you should know what does it mean), and this only to simplify the understanding because it is really Poisson distributed, you would expect to have, about 13 % of combinations showing up once in 100 lines, about 82% of combinations showing up twice and the remaining 5 % will be made up but some combinations not showing up at all, and some others more than twice.

Then (the ridiculous part) my one 4# win as you say is just by accident? What does it mean and WHY you consider it by accident. What are the criteria that qualify that win as an accidental one. What are the non-accidental wins?

Gee, lottoarchitect, I don't believe at all in the second half of your nick, you might be a little lotto-dreamer-person, but nothing architect. Sorry!

 

[Rob50]

Hello winhunter,

It seems you posted when I was writing to lottoarchitect. I very much appreciate you being politely, after a rather apparently aggresive posting of my part. It is true I really felt that my questions would be misunderstood, that's why I apologized twice.

I understand we believe in two totally incompatible things regarding the lottery. No harm done. I wish all the best to you and based in my beliefs just GOOD LUCK!

 

[winhunter]

Hello winhunter,

It seems you posted when I was writing to lottoarchitect. I very much appreciate you being politely, after a rather apparently aggresive posting of my part. It is true I really felt that my questions would be misunderstood, that's why I apologized twice.

I understand we believe in two totally incompatible things regarding the lottery. No harm done. I wish all the best to you and based in my beliefs just GOOD LUCK!

Rob,

I undertand now your criticizm towards me. Your signature explains it all. I dont claim to be a lotto prophet. I just developed a tool to help explore the possibility of computer lottery prediction. Although I do believe it is very difficult, my own WINhunter experiences still leave me to

As with any and all things, there must always be a critic to keep things in balance. Without critics, we would have lousy actors, lousy books, and lousy software. As for predictions, they will almost always seem lousy, because there is only one jackpot drawn out of the millions of possible ones. The real trick, is to make sure your not wasting your money plying numbers for each draw that doesnt make sense.

As for the origional topic thread, my jury is still out as to the "Randomness" of lotteries. But that is me.

 

[lottoarchitect]

Hey, lottoarchitect

My question was directed to winhunter, but since you want one there it is:

Did you graduate from the schools (universities) or you just took courses? Because the problem is that people with one blind eye see the reality, but does not perceive the third dimension.

You say that in the last 100 draws of greek lottery you found only one match of 3 # from 123456. First do you know that the probability for a set of 3 numbers to show up in a 6/49 line is only 1/54, so in 100 draws you would expect a little less then 2. So it is fine. Because some sound mathematical calculations will show you that in average each combination of 3 # will show up 1.85185 times in 100 lines. Assuming that this quantity is normaly distributed (you should know what does it mean), and this only to simplify the understanding because it is really Poisson distributed, you would expect to have, about 13 % of combinations showing up once in 100 lines, about 82% of combinations showing up twice and the remaining 5 % will be made up but some combinations not showing up at all, and some others more than twice.

Then (the ridiculous part) my one 4# win as you say is just by accident? What does it mean and WHY you consider it by accident. What are the criteria that qualify that win as an accidental one. What are the non-accidental wins?

Gee, lottoarchitect, I don't believe at all in the second half of your nick, you might be a little lotto-dreamer-person, but nothing architect. Sorry!

Whatever, I do not force you to believe/accept what I say. Now, if you have realized what I'm talking about, is bias and effects of this. Several tests I have made show a rather strange behaviour to what we can say random. One of these is that the last draw seems to not follow strictly what we would expect. The most hits occur at the range of 2-4 past draws with a high unusual hit ratio. 4 hits occur in 1200 draws when we expect this to happen 1 in 1032 draws (you know that don't you?). Also this behaviour appears somehow periodically e.g. at a past distance of 14-16 and other ranges beyond that (you don't know that, do you?). It might be this situation only with Greek Lotto but even this, is an indication of bias (or call it whatever you like) in a lottery. Mathematically speaking, what you describe is correct when applied to purely random events. But WHAT I try to show here is that lotteries are not purely random (they are biased) which requires statistical tests and more data to prove but there are already some indications like the above. You are free to accept/reject it.
Gee Rob50, it seems you have never analysed anything in your life. Sorry!

lottoarchitect

PS: I got the degrees and hopefully I perceive 4D as well, did you stuck to 3D? No offence.

 

[Rob50]

Well, lottoarchitect as per analyzing I have already analyzed what is worth, I have had my conclusions (one of them is dont try to predict the lottery, it is wasted time, and I am trying to help the others, like you, not to waist valuable time) and now I am ENJOYING what I have already analyzed!

For you to know, I still analyze a couple of real precious things!

About the dimensions, I was talking about one-eye blind people, consequently I was meaning the 3 physical space dimensions. Now talking about 4-th real dimension (the time) this has got nothing to do with the blindness. But if you feel proud about perceiving the 4th dimensions, let me remind you that you are still very limited. There are many more dimensions in this world.
Are you aware of?

Great to learn that you got your degrees, I feel hapy for you.

Let's become serious now!

I really don't understand the mumbo-jumbo about 1032 past draws, biases in greek lottery and so on. But this is not the point and I will not get into it.

One thing is clear though, you misunderstand what I am saying. If you look at my other posts in this forum (I am not saying you have to do it) you would notice that I always have aggreed that the lotteries might be biased, meaning that the machines (or mechanical set-ups) used to draw them can't be ideally perfect. On the other hand the lotto corps take all the possible precautions to minimize those potential, spontaneous and unavoidable biases. This happens to the extent that the biases themselves become more or less random. The big picture now is even more complicated than with a purely random lottery: you have lottery draws which are meant to be purely random, but that aren't, to which random biases of different nature overlap. Have you ever thought that biases themselves are random, i.e:

One bias can be caused by the way the clerk drops the balls in the machine. Assuming that the lotto draw depends on this, in order to detect and exploit this kind of bias one has to assume that the bloody clerk must use the same exact perfect twist of the wrist, which you understand cannot happen, let alone that certainly there are a few different clerks doing this job. One can think of different such examples that all possible imaginable biases that may affect the lottery draws, are themselves random and are totally uncontrollable, therefore unpredictable.

Furthermore, let's assume that some major uncontrollable and temporarily undetected by the lotto corp bias exist in a lottery somewhere in the world. As the simplest bias visible in a lottery would be the appearance of a specific number, out of the normal range of the average +/- a certain number times the standard deviation (you should understand what I am talking about). By the time whatever analysis is being done by lotto fans, which will discover the fact, the lotto corp would have corrected the situation. You should know that the lotto corps watch very carefully to these thinks. They don't like to be nailed with statistical facts about their honesty.

Any ways, I will not waste any more time with such unfruitfull discussions. As I said now rather than analyse, I ENJOY. Who wants to spend time in predicting lotteries is obviosly free to do it.

Good luck lottoarchitect.

 

[lottoarchitect]

Well, lottoarchitect as per analyzing I have already analyzed what is worth, I have had my conclusions (one of them is dont try to predict the lottery, it is wasted time, and I am trying to help the others, like you, not to waist valuable time) and now I am ENJOYING what I have already analyzed!

For you to know, I still analyze a couple of real precious things!

About the dimensions, I was talking about one-eye blind people, consequently I was meaning the 3 physical space dimensions. Now talking about 4-th real dimension (the time) this has got nothing to do with the blindness. But if you feel proud about perceiving the 4th dimensions, let me remind you that you are still very limited. There are many more dimensions in this world.
Are you aware of?

Great to learn that you got your degrees, I feel hapy for you.

Let's become serious now!

I really don't understand the mumbo-jumbo about 1032 past draws, biases in greek lottery and so on. But this is not the point and I will not get into it.

One thing is clear though, you misunderstand what I am saying. If you look at my other posts in this forum (I am not saying you have to do it) you would notice that I always have aggreed that the lotteries might be biased, meaning that the machines (or mechanical set-ups) used to draw them can't be ideally perfect. On the other hand the lotto corps take all the possible precautions to minimize those potential, spontaneous and unavoidable biases. This happens to the extent that the biases themselves become more or less random. The big picture now is even more complicated than with a purely random lottery: you have lottery draws which are meant to be purely random, but that aren't, to which random biases of different nature overlap. Have you ever thought that biases themselves are random, i.e:

One bias can be caused by the way the clerk drops the balls in the machine. Assuming that the lotto draw depends on this, in order to detect and exploit this kind of bias one has to assume that the bloody clerk must use the same exact perfect twist of the wrist, which you understand cannot happen, let alone that certainly there are a few different clerks doing this job. One can think of different such examples that all possible imaginable biases that may affect the lottery draws, are themselves random and are totally uncontrollable, therefore unpredictable.

Furthermore, let's assume that some major uncontrollable and temporarily undetected by the lotto corp bias exist in a lottery somewhere in the world. As the simplest bias visible in a lottery would be the appearance of a specific number, out of the normal range of the average +/- a certain number times the standard deviation (you should understand what I am talking about). By the time whatever analysis is being done by lotto fans, which will discover the fact, the lotto corp would have corrected the situation. You should know that the lotto corps watch very carefully to these thinks. They don't like to be nailed with statistical facts about their honesty.

Any ways, I will not waste any more time with such unfruitfull discussions. As I said now rather than analyse, I ENJOY. Who wants to spend time in predicting lotteries is obviosly free to do it.

Good luck lottoarchitect.

Farewell. I'm not into fights either. Keep in mind that right now you say exactly what I'm saying. I added one part only: the hope to trap this to predict future events due to bias. Goodluck too.

lottoarchitect

 

[Rob50]

OK, allow me to add only one more little thing:

Your hope is just an illusion!

I guess, this really make what you and I are saying as different as it can be!

Now, bye for real!

 

[Grandmaster]

Lottoarchitect,

Don't waste your time with discusions with Rob50..

I wasted my time.

Regards