Dennis Bassboss
Member
Thanks everyone for your contributions here indeed! 
Repeaters
- Thread starter peter
- Start date
Who is going to tell Nick?
Dennis:
Oh, we are not done with this just yet
... ...I did a completely thorough
number by number check of Nick's data you sent me against BCLC.
Starting with draw 1990, you must change 30 to 36 and also make a correction on draw 1890 where 18 should be 28.
After those 2 errors are fixed, you should be good.
How do you like them apples? It was a very good thing I did that check with a humble wittle
program of mine and a few tricks getting it out of a worksheet into clean ASCII data. You want to know for sure about data integrity, leave it to me.
Regards,
George
Dennis:
Oh, we are not done with this just yet
... ...I did a completely thorough number by number check of Nick's data you sent me against BCLC.Starting with draw 1990, you must change 30 to 36 and also make a correction on draw 1890 where 18 should be 28.
After those 2 errors are fixed, you should be good
.How do you like them apples? It was a very good thing I did that check with a humble wittle
program of mine and a few tricks getting it out of a worksheet into clean ASCII data. You want to know for sure about data integrity, leave it to me.Regards,
George
Dennis Bassboss said:Thanks everyone for your contributions here indeed!
Last edited:
Dennis Bassboss
Member
Re: Who is going to tell Nick?
I just confirm these 2 errors in my database for Nick's software ...All my other databases were already clean George...gsobier said:Dennis:
Oh, we are not done with this just yet
Starting with draw 1990, you must change 30 to 36 and also make a correction on draw 1890 where 18 should be 28.
After those 2 errors are fixed, you should be good
How do you like them apples? It was a very good thing I did that check with a humble wittle
Regards,
George
Dennis Bassboss
Member
These can be avoided...I should have downloaded the database from BCLC from scratch in the first place for Nick's tool...
Good teamwork!
I think your teamwork concluded that the database from BCLC is correct. It's good to know that, otherwise we could have a correct database in the lotto stuff section of this board.
Dennis Bassboss said:These can be avoided...I should have downloaded the database from BCLC from scratch in the first place for Nick's tool...
I think your teamwork concluded that the database from BCLC is correct. It's good to know that, otherwise we could have a correct database in the lotto stuff section of this board.
Dennis Bassboss
Member
Re: Good teamwork!
These should be checked out....I have updated mines a very long time ago....hot4 said:I think your teamwork concluded that the database from BCLC is correct. It's good to know that, otherwise we could have a correct database in the lotto stuff section of this board.
Re: Re: Good teamwork!
Dennis:
I don't understand how there could have been errors in Nick's data. I'm sure he'd be shocked to learn about this... ...some of those things like BPS will be different now... ...I don't know how much but it should change to some degree.
There are other players who probably have errors in thier data and don't know about it.
Regards,
George
Dennis:
I don't understand how there could have been errors in Nick's data. I'm sure he'd be shocked to learn about this... ...some of those things like BPS will be different now... ...I don't know how much but it should change to some degree.
There are other players who probably have errors in thier data and don't know about it.
Regards,
George
Dennis Bassboss said:These should be checked out....I have updated mines a very long time ago....
Dennis Bassboss
Member
Re: Re: Re: Good teamwork!
Not sure exactly of what I did...I may have used an older (to be updated database) from my own history folders...
You can always check it out from Nick's site the history to download is still there...
(but in either cases the fact remained that 7 numbers will show up errors in the count for repeaters...this has to be fixed!)
But concerning Best performing set (The ones that I have sended to you lately)
As you know already...I did not used Nick's tool for these....
By the way did you work on a program capable of doing what mine can do???(regarding histories for 0/4,1/4,2/4,3/4....etc...)
Actually I'm not using Nick's tool too much for 6/49 ...I mostly used Nick's stuff from the beginning for Québec Banco...That explains these database errors ...
Two possibilities here...Either I have downloaded that database from another source initially or it had errors in it from the moment I downloaded that device...gsobier said:Dennis:
I don't understand how there could have been errors in Nick's data. I'm sure he'd be shocked to learn about this... ...some of those things like BPS will be different now... ...I don't know how much but it should change to some degree.
There are other players who probably have errors in thier data and don't know about it.
Regards,
George
Not sure exactly of what I did...I may have used an older (to be updated database) from my own history folders...
You can always check it out from Nick's site the history to download is still there...
(but in either cases the fact remained that 7 numbers will show up errors in the count for repeaters...this has to be fixed!)
But concerning Best performing set (The ones that I have sended to you lately)
As you know already...I did not used Nick's tool for these....
By the way did you work on a program capable of doing what mine can do???(regarding histories for 0/4,1/4,2/4,3/4....etc...)
Actually I'm not using Nick's tool too much for 6/49 ...I mostly used Nick's stuff from the beginning for Québec Banco...That explains these database errors ...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Good teamwork!
Dennis:
I looked at a copy of Nick's data which came preloaded from the internet... ...those errors are there alright.
I'll e-Mail you regarding that program... ...I have a few questions.
Regards,
George
Dennis:
I looked at a copy of Nick's data which came preloaded from the internet... ...those errors are there alright
.I'll e-Mail you regarding that program... ...I have a few questions.
Regards,
George
Dennis Bassboss said:Two possibilities here...Either I have downloaded that database from another source initially or it had errors in it from the moment I downloaded that device...
Not sure exactly of what I did...I may have used an older (to be updated database) from my own history folders...
You can always check it out from Nick's site the history to download is still there...
(but in either cases the fact remained that 7 numbers will show up errors in the count for repeaters...this has to be fixed!)
But concerning Best performing set (The ones that I have sended to you lately)
As you know already...I did not used Nick's tool for these....
By the way did you work on a program capable of doing what mine can do???(regarding histories for 0/4,1/4,2/4,3/4....etc...)
Actually I'm not using Nick's tool too much for 6/49 ...I mostly used Nick's stuff from the beginning for Québec Banco...That explains these database errors ...
Lets do a quick comparison of the draw database by sum total by position, if we vary, we have ways to find which draw is different. Here is what I have.
Position One = 15,307
Position Two = 30,476
Position Three = 45,822
Position Four = 60,869
Position Five = 75,809
Position Six = 90,457
Position Seven = 52,663
For A total Sum Total of 371,403.
This is up to and including Draw 2096.
Position One = 15,307
Position Two = 30,476
Position Three = 45,822
Position Four = 60,869
Position Five = 75,809
Position Six = 90,457
Position Seven = 52,663
For A total Sum Total of 371,403.
This is up to and including Draw 2096.
Peter:
This kind of checking is not good enough. You need to send me an ASCII data file which I can confirm... ...there is no other way to do it correctly. Comparing totals is no good because errors can hide in there undetected. This is very bad because relationships of numbers will always be distorted.
Regards,
George
This kind of checking is not good enough
. You need to send me an ASCII data file which I can confirm... ...there is no other way to do it correctly. Comparing totals is no good because errors can hide in there undetected. This is very bad because relationships of numbers will always be distorted.Regards,
George
peter said:
Sum by position
Here is the sum by position. The first column is Peter's data and the second column is mine.
Position # 1: 15,307 - - 15,307
Position # 2: 30,476 - - 30,476
Position # 3: 45,822 - - 45,822
Position # 4: 60,869 - - 60,869
Position # 5: 75,809 - - 75,808
Position # 6: 90,457 - - 90,476
Position # 7: 52,663 - - 52,645
The sums differ for position #5, 6 and 7 but the total is the same for both of us, 371,403
Here is the sum by position. The first column is Peter's data and the second column is mine.
Position # 1: 15,307 - - 15,307
Position # 2: 30,476 - - 30,476
Position # 3: 45,822 - - 45,822
Position # 4: 60,869 - - 60,869
Position # 5: 75,809 - - 75,808
Position # 6: 90,457 - - 90,476
Position # 7: 52,663 - - 52,645
The sums differ for position #5, 6 and 7 but the total is the same for both of us, 371,403
Re: Sum by position
Peter:
You obviously have errors like I suspected... ...GillesD and I have 100% identical data.
GillesD:
Thank you for posting totals which saves me the trouble doing it. Like I have told Peter over and over again... ...you can't rely of totals... ...it will fool you. The only correct way is a program to compare each number to exactly identify where the error is... ...without doing this, there will always be doubt.
Regards,
George
Peter:
You obviously have errors like I suspected
... ...GillesD and I have 100% identical data.GillesD:
Thank you for posting totals which saves me the trouble doing it
. Like I have told Peter over and over again... ...you can't rely of totals... ...it will fool you. The only correct way is a program to compare each number to exactly identify where the error is... ...without doing this, there will always be doubt.Regards,
George
GillesD said:
Nick Koutras
Member
I missed this thread...
It seems that there is a discrepancy
between my database and the BCLC
I'll check the data and I'll report the results.
It seems that there is a discrepancy
between my database and the BCLC
I'll check the data and I'll report the results.
Nick Koutras
Member
I did check the Database at my web site
vs the BCLC results.
The databases are the same!
My web's data are up to 27/09/2003
and up to that date agree 100%!
Any comments?
vs the BCLC results.
The databases are the same!
My web's data are up to 27/09/2003
and up to that date agree 100%!
Any comments?