Dennis Bassboss
Member
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
distribution!
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!
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
distribution!
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!
