Reply to Gilles D.

I Gilles I had time to think about it I'm not in total shape at the present time but I have
this to say about deltas and how it is not a normal realistic representation distribution if you get rid of some higher number created by an exponential
I'm going to show an example to demonstrate that!
Suppose a lightbulb company want to chek the durability of there lightbulbs!
Let's say that they light on one hundred of these to get a sample ( of course they will recreate the situations many many times).Than they compile the datas on how long they last!
Now lets pretend that 10 lightbulbs burned out 20 or so hours after all the others.So when compiling the results the statistician decide to get rid of these extreme datas and considers only the remaining results,what would happen then is that the average
( moyenne et médiane) are going to be trick and not realistic of what happenned.If we are repeating the same story with all the samples, further down the road when all of the datas from the other groups of lightbulbs tested at a different time will be add up even...un écart-type (sorry I do not know the English term for it) would not gives us a realistic feedback on what generally occurs with these lightbulb and even a (score z) would be influence greatly by it. The thing that we have to remember is once you get rid of a data that occurred randomly you are at this very moment tricking the dice,numbers are drawn like if they were on a line you can't cut that line ,suppose I have on a draw 16-32-35-40-59-78 then I should get rid of 59 and 78 ( They are higher than 49) but instead I'm also getting rid of 16-32-35-40 on the very next draw 16-32-35-40-41-45 are drawn ...see the problem ,it is as if you would have two 40 and 35 on the same set of six numbers.On the other hand,if this scenario is repeated over and over again you might get two hundred rejects for number 16 twenty for 32 and so on... remember that the deltas of one are the one that have the best survival rates even using exponential numbers.You then wind up at the end with a population that looks normal but the random factor have been taken away by messing up the real results.I have tested the delta system a lot in the past 6 months and my observations went to the conclusion that its mechanic is flods
and it takes too much of the random factor away to be even consider as a filter from my standards.
Now are they using the delta system to generate random tickets the answer is no for sure Gilles they are using a system based on
(calcul integral using an algorith method)quite different from the deltas we are so but so talking about for nothing.
It is true that results from the past does not affect one single draw but results from the past may be of some help from predicting
some odds for a single number to come out in draws to come but in more than 7 or 10 draws in a row that's for sure, because the random factor is always present the day of a draw.
Presently number 49 is showing just that isn't. It should have come out a long time ago
and it will for sure sooner then later now!
Sorry for the long post but you have no idea how good I feel writing and focusing on that instead of focussing on the dam pain that I have to suffer for a while, I will be back on my two feet sooner than I thought, I have to get out of this place in a hurry and everything went fine for me, so I might even be able to post a new prediction as soon as Wednesday!
Thanks Gilles for the reply!
Wow see they open me up and perhaps they've put some more in there ....they should have put an excell file I don't have it in my computer!


Dear Dennis, Let me first say I am delighted that all has gone well for you and it is great to see you post again. All of this talk regarding delta's is giving me a headache. Perhaps not being a mathamatician is part of the problem. I don't understand half the stuff that you and Gilles are talking about. But what I do understand is not that past draws will predict the outcome of future draws, but instead as you have said and I have also said time and time again history of past draws may help you in drawing conclusions of patterns or trends. --------- Regards, PETER

Welcome back, friend. Gather your strength, you'll need it.

GillesD! You just repeated, almost verbatim, what I had said in an earlier post. That we study historical data NOT to give us psychic abilities for the future, but to try and see some trends in the past and hope that those trends repeat in the future.

I had also mentioned that I would consider using deltas as a filter, but not a stand-alone system. At last count, Flipper confirmed that his delta-number generation was completely random, in which case I told him that he must be the luckiest man on earth, because he keeps winning from his random picks. And I don't mean that as a joke. I asked Flipper to send some luck my way, but so far I only have bills in my mailbox.

Cheers again Dennis


Salut, Dennis. Very glad that things went well. I trust you did not hassle the nurses too much!

I am reading all of this info on deltas with much interest. Everyone makes some good points for and against. My own limited analysis points to deltas taking an already hard enough problem and compounding it. I broke down the last 30 draws into deltas. If one were to know for sure the first number of the next draw they would then have to have their deltas in the correct order to win the 6/6. Even with using deltas of 1 to 15 [as Flipper suggests]trying to get them in the correct order [even the correct deltas, for that matter]seems an uphill battle. If anyone has played the "Plus" or the "Extra" on either of Canada's national draws you know how hard it is to not only guess the correct digits but have them in the correct order. Odds that are already stacked against you increase exponentially. Perhaps I need to study it more to see the benefit of the delta system.
Regardless, money talks and if Flipper is raking it in then 'kudos'.

Anyways, a speedy recover and good health to you!


I'll bet he did hassle the nurses, thats probably why they are letting him go home early
Originally posted by peter:
I'll bet he did hassle the nurses, thats probably why they are letting him go home early
No I was only reading aloud some quotes from Flipper!

But when you think about it ,it takes less time being operated on than for Flip to check his tickets...

[This message has been edited by Dennis Bassboss (edited June 19, 2001).]


I tend to agree with most of your comments but I will read them a few times to understand them cleraly.
I disagree with you on the programming aspect for generating quick pick. I am sure that deltas are not used but unless you know for sure the program used, you are assuming that a proper method is available.
Remember what happened when Loto-Quebec started electronic keno at the Montreal casino. A guy figured out the sequences of numbers coming out. He was sitting on a golden egg but got too greedy and went for big money in a short period of time. Loto-Quebec reviewed their progam and found it inadequate. and I am sure that it had been tested extensively.
I agree with you on the generating of quick picks tickets aspects and on everything else I guess.Maybe I did not write clearly what I meant on this aspect I did not want to assume I was citing another way of doing it. Nobody's knows for sure of the method that they are using. Because like you've said if someone did he would have break their code a long time ago like these guys at the Montreal Casino for the electronic Keno game. These programs are a well gard secret by The Lotto Corporations around the world and of course you are right again they must have tested this thing intensively knowing what has happenned.
Thanks Gilles !




Originally posted by peter:
Not rigged , 6/49 is not working exactly the same as an electronic game because you have the balls. What we are referring to is that whatever set of numbers generated by a program must be programmed, therefore a sneaky guy could break the code (This really happenned in the Montreal's Casino for keno) but the winning numbers were picked electronically.
You couldn't predict 6/49 results using this.
But what might be the same is the way quick picks are generated.
Good to talk to you Peter!
Guys, did you ever think that this is why you canNOT pick your own encore #? Or "Winner Take All" #?
If you could, there would be 17,000 winners every draw.