Sangoma-number divination
- Thread starter Springbok
- Start date
Excellence
Member
Hi Patrick,
I do a lot of tests with your program and every time I test something I keep under observation most of the columns in order to see if I can spot something helpful. Doing that, I noticed that the column Skip of Skip is always blank. I consider this column as a very important one, especially if we want to get rid of some numbers.
A Skip of a Skip is, in my opinion, the number of draws between the appearances of a number whit a Skip equal to X. If a number with a skip equal to 0 is drawn in the 10 draw let’s say, and in the 11th draw no number with a Skip equal to 0 appears then for the 12 draw Skip 0 will have a Skip of 1. Therefore every number whit a skip of 0 will have in the column Skip of Skip the number 1. Let me know if you consider this a good idea.
I do a lot of tests with your program and every time I test something I keep under observation most of the columns in order to see if I can spot something helpful. Doing that, I noticed that the column Skip of Skip is always blank. I consider this column as a very important one, especially if we want to get rid of some numbers.
A Skip of a Skip is, in my opinion, the number of draws between the appearances of a number whit a Skip equal to X. If a number with a skip equal to 0 is drawn in the 10 draw let’s say, and in the 11th draw no number with a Skip equal to 0 appears then for the 12 draw Skip 0 will have a Skip of 1. Therefore every number whit a skip of 0 will have in the column Skip of Skip the number 1. Let me know if you consider this a good idea.
Goie middag Patrick
I conducted another series of test on the automatic checker and then ran parallel tests. It appears that the automatic checker is spot on. I do not know why I found discrepencies earlier. Must have been the way I did the manual checking, Probably another blond moment. I will now find out what I did wrong.
I conducted another series of test on the automatic checker and then ran parallel tests. It appears that the automatic checker is spot on. I do not know why I found discrepencies earlier. Must have been the way I did the manual checking, Probably another blond moment. I will now find out what I did wrong.
What is the automatic checker checking?
The problem is how does the automatic filter report. For example if it reports on past draw 3, is it reporting on what the filter forecasted when past draw 3 was still unknown ie the situation as it was up to past draw 4. Or did it simply report what happened when it scanned past draw 3 when it scanned the pairs and included what it found in past draw 3. In other words is the check program based on what the filter predicts or on the current status quo. The little point is extremely important.
The problem is how does the automatic filter report. For example if it reports on past draw 3, is it reporting on what the filter forecasted when past draw 3 was still unknown ie the situation as it was up to past draw 4. Or did it simply report what happened when it scanned past draw 3 when it scanned the pairs and included what it found in past draw 3. In other words is the check program based on what the filter predicts or on the current status quo. The little point is extremely important.
Patrick123
Member
Goie More Springbok,
I was under the impression, that the filter works exactly the same as it would with the current draw, but now to tell you the truth, you got me with a curve-ball. I'll check the coding as well as a few actual samples and report back to you. I agree it is extremely important, otherwise we'll end up chasing rainbows.
I was under the impression, that the filter works exactly the same as it would with the current draw, but now to tell you the truth, you got me with a curve-ball. I'll check the coding as well as a few actual samples and report back to you. I agree it is extremely important, otherwise we'll end up chasing rainbows.
Patrick123
Member
Hi Springbok,
Finished checking, the information is exactly as it would have been, if that draw was the current draw and the results unknown, as what we require it.
To confirm this, you can simply import your draws, and skip the first x lines, so that historical draw becomes the current one. Run your filters and take note of the results.
Now you can load your draws as normal, but this time get the History from the Draw Analysis screen. Select the past x draw from the combo box, and run you filters to compare against the noted results. They should be identical, the only difference will be that the 'In Draw' column should now be populated.
So it is safe to say, it is what the filter predicts and not the current status quo.
Regards
Patrick
Finished checking, the information is exactly as it would have been, if that draw was the current draw and the results unknown, as what we require it.
To confirm this, you can simply import your draws, and skip the first x lines, so that historical draw becomes the current one. Run your filters and take note of the results.
Now you can load your draws as normal, but this time get the History from the Draw Analysis screen. Select the past x draw from the combo box, and run you filters to compare against the noted results. They should be identical, the only difference will be that the 'In Draw' column should now be populated.
So it is safe to say, it is what the filter predicts and not the current status quo.
Regards
Patrick
Tumela Patrick
This is what I think is happening. Let's say we load draadsitter3. Assume the programme checker analysis past draw 10.. It reads the filter and basis the output on the draad3 for that very draw. What it should do is look at past draw 11, see what draad3 pulls out up to that draw. It then looks ahead at what happened in past draw 10 and see what hits. In other words the prediction is based from past draw 11, 12 .........n. Past draw 10 is at that stage is an unknown quantity. Once it has done this, it then loops around and continues on in the same way.
Another point is that the filters work with different parameters. The draadsitters must hit in the very next draw to be successful. Opening batsmen are successful in that they can range from 0 up to the median. In other words they have a 2 draw breathing space(assuming the median is 2) but must hit by the third draw to register a success.
Inbetweeners have a one draw breathing space(assuming the median is 2) but must hit in the second draw to be successful.
When I check these manually I automatically use these parameters to judge whether the filter is successful or not. That's why my reports do not agree with the automatic checker output. I think it is not looking ahead to the next draw. It is not predicting the future but reports on the current status quo for each past draw. We need to know the future, not the present.
This is what I think is happening. Let's say we load draadsitter3. Assume the programme checker analysis past draw 10.. It reads the filter and basis the output on the draad3 for that very draw. What it should do is look at past draw 11, see what draad3 pulls out up to that draw. It then looks ahead at what happened in past draw 10 and see what hits. In other words the prediction is based from past draw 11, 12 .........n. Past draw 10 is at that stage is an unknown quantity. Once it has done this, it then loops around and continues on in the same way.
Another point is that the filters work with different parameters. The draadsitters must hit in the very next draw to be successful. Opening batsmen are successful in that they can range from 0 up to the median. In other words they have a 2 draw breathing space(assuming the median is 2) but must hit by the third draw to register a success.
Inbetweeners have a one draw breathing space(assuming the median is 2) but must hit in the second draw to be successful.
When I check these manually I automatically use these parameters to judge whether the filter is successful or not. That's why my reports do not agree with the automatic checker output. I think it is not looking ahead to the next draw. It is not predicting the future but reports on the current status quo for each past draw. We need to know the future, not the present.
Hi Patrick
With painstaking care I re-checked the automatic results vs the manual check results. I did it twice just to be on the safe side. They are identical. Sorry for the inconvenience.I feel a bit of a mpara. The problem was I was not reloading before between the automatic checks and the manual checks. These things can be confusing when one is not using 110% concentration. Now I can go ahead and check the straight and the anti filters to see whatsup and what priceless information can be deduced and how the numbers of previous draws affect the predictions.
With painstaking care I re-checked the automatic results vs the manual check results. I did it twice just to be on the safe side. They are identical. Sorry for the inconvenience.I feel a bit of a mpara. The problem was I was not reloading before between the automatic checks and the manual checks. These things can be confusing when one is not using 110% concentration. Now I can go ahead and check the straight and the anti filters to see whatsup and what priceless information can be deduced and how the numbers of previous draws affect the predictions.
Middag Patrick
I've been running tests on the 5/34 section of the Thunderball game. Jislaaik, running tests is quite a job. I have been trying to find out by certain pairs hit and others don' t even when they have the same criteria or in other word trying to understand the syntax. What I have noticed with Draadsitter5 in this game is that it has a 75% accuracy rate. The only problem is it has only occurred 4 times in the last 20 draws. Draadsitter5- anti also has a 75% accuracy rate in actually hitting. Also it has only appeared 4 times in the last 20 draws.
I think you can only test the draadsitter with the automatic checking as it looks at the next draw. Opening batsmen and inbetweeners require a look ahead of 2 to 3 draws(I assume I am right here?).
Another thing I found is that say the strike rate of pairs in a particular draw is say 24% then when you look at what numbers they bring up you can find they have 4 of the winning numbers in the 7/49 game. Anyway there is a whole stack of work to be done with checking. All these pairs busy talking- it is like the Tower of Babel. There is much greater complexity here compared to using the alpha, bravo etc files.
I've been running tests on the 5/34 section of the Thunderball game. Jislaaik, running tests is quite a job. I have been trying to find out by certain pairs hit and others don' t even when they have the same criteria or in other word trying to understand the syntax. What I have noticed with Draadsitter5 in this game is that it has a 75% accuracy rate. The only problem is it has only occurred 4 times in the last 20 draws. Draadsitter5- anti also has a 75% accuracy rate in actually hitting. Also it has only appeared 4 times in the last 20 draws.
I think you can only test the draadsitter with the automatic checking as it looks at the next draw. Opening batsmen and inbetweeners require a look ahead of 2 to 3 draws(I assume I am right here?).
Another thing I found is that say the strike rate of pairs in a particular draw is say 24% then when you look at what numbers they bring up you can find they have 4 of the winning numbers in the 7/49 game. Anyway there is a whole stack of work to be done with checking. All these pairs busy talking- it is like the Tower of Babel.
There is much greater complexity here compared to using the alpha, bravo etc files.Goie aand Patrick
There is no doubt that if the forecasting looks forward to the required draws according to the filter criteria then they are very accurate. Using Winnalotto alone(no alpha, beta etc files) I have had some brilliant wins today. Of course I usually offset-eg if I use an inbetweener I go back a draw or so for the forecast. If nothing hits in the next draw then it should hit in the one after. Draadsitter gave me 3 numbers at teatime. What I do I vary the past history(ie fiddle with it) until I get one pair. Each time I fiddled I got one pair. I fiddled with the history 3 times and got three pairs. All 3 hit teatime.
At the moment the reporting on the automatic checker does not give a true picture. When I first looked at the reporting and looked at the stats, the stats never reflected my experiences with these filters. I always knew they were pretty accurate from experience especially experience with the alpha beta etc files. Fact is with these simple filters, a bit of cunning and a fair wind you should frequently hit 3 numbers with 3 pairs with whatever lottery is used like 7/49,6/49 or 5/34. I dunno about the 5/50 part of the Euromillions though.
Alles van die beste
There is no doubt that if the forecasting looks forward to the required draws according to the filter criteria then they are very accurate. Using Winnalotto alone(no alpha, beta etc files) I have had some brilliant wins today. Of course I usually offset-eg if I use an inbetweener I go back a draw or so for the forecast. If nothing hits in the next draw then it should hit in the one after. Draadsitter gave me 3 numbers at teatime. What I do I vary the past history(ie fiddle with it) until I get one pair. Each time I fiddled I got one pair. I fiddled with the history 3 times and got three pairs. All 3 hit teatime.
At the moment the reporting on the automatic checker does not give a true picture. When I first looked at the reporting and looked at the stats, the stats never reflected my experiences with these filters. I always knew they were pretty accurate from experience especially experience with the alpha beta etc files. Fact is with these simple filters, a bit of cunning and a fair wind you should frequently hit 3 numbers with 3 pairs with whatever lottery is used like 7/49,6/49 or 5/34. I dunno about the 5/50 part of the Euromillions though.
Alles van die beste
Hi Patrick
The more I think about it, do we need the checking facility? There are so many variables that can be used to check the efficiency of a filter that it would be impossible to get an accurate picture of what each filter does. Checking manually, running through the different criteria of each filter(ie draad2 draad3 ....draadx) and manipulating the range of past draws will give you different results. The user will have to check manually and see what works best for their particular game. It is a complex business(unfortunately). I am well and truly satisfied with the accuracy of Winnalotto with the techniques I use. It is definitely world class. What is important is a control on the drawings analysis screen for quick reference to the filters so when you run checks a quick click will bring them up for loading. This will avoid jumping from one screen to the other and so on.
The more I think about it, do we need the checking facility? There are so many variables that can be used to check the efficiency of a filter that it would be impossible to get an accurate picture of what each filter does. Checking manually, running through the different criteria of each filter(ie draad2 draad3 ....draadx) and manipulating the range of past draws will give you different results. The user will have to check manually and see what works best for their particular game. It is a complex business(unfortunately). I am well and truly satisfied with the accuracy of Winnalotto with the techniques I use. It is definitely world class. What is important is a control on the drawings analysis screen for quick reference to the filters so when you run checks a quick click will bring them up for loading. This will avoid jumping from one screen to the other and so on.
Patrick123
Member
Good Morning Springbok,
I've modified the filter evaluation slightly. It will now display details for the draw in relation to the filter as well as the 2nd, 3rd and 4th draw after that.
This will essentially allow us to evaluate the filters and see exactly how far into the future they are predicting.
The evaluation summary has also been modified, to reflect this analysis as well. These columns, you will see have a suffix of 2,3 or 4 respectively.
These Draw Results can be obtained from columns #103, #104 and #105.
Regards
Patrick
I've modified the filter evaluation slightly. It will now display details for the draw in relation to the filter as well as the 2nd, 3rd and 4th draw after that.
This will essentially allow us to evaluate the filters and see exactly how far into the future they are predicting.
The evaluation summary has also been modified, to reflect this analysis as well. These columns, you will see have a suffix of 2,3 or 4 respectively.
These Draw Results can be obtained from columns #103, #104 and #105.
Regards
Patrick
Patrick123
Member
Springbok said:
Hi Springbok, looks like we both posted simultaneously. The 'Load Column Filter' on the Drawings analysis screen allows you to do just that. It has the recalculate built into it automatically.
I usually load the historical results for about 10 draws back, evaluate it, and if I like the stats that is displayed, then select current and apply that filter. This allows me to get the large scale picture as to how the filter is currently performing.
Regards
Patrick
Will have a look at the changes later. I am off to reduce the bookies profits for the lunchtime draw I have to keep tight control of myself now as I tend to suffer from over confidence. I think most people will lose with Winnalotto because they lack tight discipline.
Taking an overview so far, the programme can hit 4 of the 6 slots in the 6.49 game. That is using the 3 filters and the historical high(with a fair wind behind you of course). The challenge is the void zone which lies between the historical high and those 3 filters. This is theoretically the most difficult zone to crack. At the moment it is controlled by the Hey Jude button
I have to keep tight control of myself now as I tend to suffer from over confidence. I think most people will lose with Winnalotto because they lack tight discipline.Taking an overview so far, the programme can hit 4 of the 6 slots in the 6.49 game. That is using the 3 filters and the historical high(with a fair wind behind you of course). The challenge is the void zone which lies between the historical high and those 3 filters. This is theoretically the most difficult zone to crack. At the moment it is controlled by the Hey Jude button
Patrick123
Member
I've now included a cumulative percentage column as well. This is the combined result of the four draws. Thus if this comes to 100% you can be quite sure that the predicted rows will strike within the next 4 draws .
Now to start working on the 'Hey Jude' button
.Now to start working on the 'Hey Jude' button
Howzit Patrick
Great work there. Will have a look later. Another brilliant win from the inbetweener at lunchtime. I sometimes wonder if I should give up work and become lottery professional "investor". I dislike the word gambler because this is definitely not gambling. Of course the main objective is the Thunderball followed by the 6/49 and then the Euromillions. Chasing single numbers in a pair is definitely low class and unworthy of me Seeing that one of the bookie firm had profits over over 2 billion pounds last year, I am sure they can survive my "ticky snatching"
I still look at the filters with awe and wonder for the existing ones reveal partially some of the DNA strands of the lottery process. Going back to the beginning of the thread and seeing how things have developed is an excellent example of how the internet can solve problems in the lottery and we haven't even finished yet. So far we have developed the most precise forecasting system ever. Not even Saliu's software can come this close although eventually it will be used for the final purging with Saliu's 632 programme which is unrivalled in this aspect.
Great work there. Will have a look later. Another brilliant win from the inbetweener at lunchtime. I sometimes wonder if I should give up work and become lottery professional "investor". I dislike the word gambler because this is definitely not gambling. Of course the main objective is the Thunderball followed by the 6/49 and then the Euromillions. Chasing single numbers in a pair is definitely low class and unworthy of me
Seeing that one of the bookie firm had profits over over 2 billion pounds last year, I am sure they can survive my "ticky snatching" I still look at the filters with awe and wonder for the existing ones reveal partially some of the DNA strands of the lottery process. Going back to the beginning of the thread and seeing how things have developed is an excellent example of how the internet can solve problems in the lottery and we haven't even finished yet. So far we have developed the most precise forecasting system ever. Not even Saliu's software can come this close although eventually it will be used for the final purging with Saliu's 632 programme which is unrivalled in this aspect.
I should have mentioned that with the inbetweener at lunchtime I could not get a single pair alone to be forecasted. I started with a 1000 draw history. I then kept on altering the draw history and with 250 draw history appeared a single pair as I ran through the inbetweener files, I think it was inbetweener 4 which gave a single pair. I did not use any offsetting-it was based purely up to the last draw. If I was chasing 2 or 3 pairs to hit in the very next draw I would definitely offset. Offsetting is crucially important when you are chasing multiple strikes simulataneously. If you don't then you got no hope unless St Jude smiles upon you. I don't know St Jude's strike rate with the lottery.
Patrick, the control button please on the drawing screen I don't want to get RSI which I think means repetitive strain injury
Patrick, the control button please on the drawing screen I don't want to get RSI which I think means repetitive strain injury
Patrick123
Member
Hi All,
Lesson Time on the new look Filter Evaluation:
30 Historical Draws Loaded from New Zealand 6/40 Lotto.
Column Filter Used: 'Equal Mode and LD eq 1 High Prob'
Evaluation Information:
One can see this filter does not select individual balls.
Looking at the pairs, The cumulative column (P PercC) shows us that the rows have a 100% strike rate within 4 draws.
Past 1, selected a row which did not hit the last draw, this means, the pair of numbers should be will now hit within the next 3 draws.
Likewise, The trips also show a 100% strike rate within 4 draws.
Past 2's row that was selected has not come in. So It should definitely hit within the next draw or 2.
This now gives us that extra confidence to re-evaluate the filters and be able to understand, that although the filter did not hit this draw, the rows filtered still have clout in the future draws (Springbok's offset)
Springbok, your RSI is solved by the LLB (Lowest Left Button)
I agree this program, in the hands of somebody who has read this entire thread, and understands it, now has one of the most powerful programs available to analyse the lotto and become a professional lottery investor, instead of just the run-of-the-mill gambler.
Regards
Patrick
Lesson Time on the new look Filter Evaluation:
30 Historical Draws Loaded from New Zealand 6/40 Lotto.
Column Filter Used: 'Equal Mode and LD eq 1 High Prob'
Code:
#20 = #2
and
#1 = #2
and
#1 = 1
and
#15 >= 30
and
#6 >= 3
and
#6 <= 4Evaluation Information:
Code:
B Rows B Filt B Hit B Perc B Hit2 B Perc2 B Hit3 B Perc3 B Hit4 B Perc4 B HitC B PercC P Rows P Filt P 1 P 2 P Hit P Perc P 1 2 P 2 2 P Hit2 P Perc2 P 1 3 P 2 3 P Hit3 P Perc3 P 1 4 P 2 4 P Hit4 P Perc4 P HitC P PercC T Rows T Filt T 1 T 2 T 3 T Hit T Perc T 1 2 T 2 2 T 3 2 T Hit2 T Perc2 T 1 3 T 2 3 T 3 3 T Hit3 T Perc3 T 1 4 T 2 4 T 3 4 T Hit4 T Perc4 T HitC T PercC
Past 1 40 0 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 780 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9880 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 100
Past 2 40 0 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 780 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 100 9880 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Past 3 40 0 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 780 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 100 9880 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 100
Past 4 40 0 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 780 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 100 9880 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 100
Past 5 40 0 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 780 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 100 9880 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 100
Past 6 40 0 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 780 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 100 9880 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 100
Past 7 40 0 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 780 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 100 9880 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 100
Past 8 40 0 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 780 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 100 9880 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 100
Past 9 40 0 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 780 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 100 9880 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 100
Past 10 40 0 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 780 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 100 9880 2 1 0 0 1 50 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 50 2 0 0 2 100 4 100
Past 11 40 0 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 780 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 100 9880 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 100
Past 12 40 0 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 780 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 100 9880 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 100
Past 13 40 0 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 780 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 100 9880 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 100
Past 14 40 0 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 780 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 100 1 0 1 100 2 100 9880 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 100
Past 15 40 0 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 780 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 100 9880 1 1 0 0 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 100 2 100
Past 16 40 0 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 780 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 100 9880 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 100
Past 17 40 0 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 780 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 100 9880 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 100
Past 18 40 0 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 780 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 100 9880 4 3 1 0 4 100 1 0 0 1 25 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 25 6 100
Past 19 40 0 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 780 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 100 9880 1 1 0 0 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 2 100
Past 20 40 0 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 780 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 100 9880 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 100
Past 21 40 0 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 780 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 100 9880 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 100
Past 22 40 0 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 780 1 1 0 1 100 1 0 1 100 1 0 1 100 0 0 0 0 3 100 9880 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 100 2 100
Past 23 40 0 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 780 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 100 9880 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 100
Past 24 40 0 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 780 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 100 9880 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 100
Past 25 40 0 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 780 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 100 9880 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 100
Past 26 40 0 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 780 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 100 9880 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 100
Past 27 40 0 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 780 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 100 9880 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 100
Past 28 40 0 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 780 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 100 9880 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 100
Past 29 40 0 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 780 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 100 9880 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 100
Past 30 40 0 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 780 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 100 9880 3 0 2 1 3 100 1 2 0 3 100 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 66 8 100One can see this filter does not select individual balls.
Looking at the pairs, The cumulative column (P PercC) shows us that the rows have a 100% strike rate within 4 draws.
Past 1, selected a row which did not hit the last draw, this means, the pair of numbers should be will now hit within the next 3 draws.
Likewise, The trips also show a 100% strike rate within 4 draws.
Past 2's row that was selected has not come in. So It should definitely hit within the next draw or 2.
This now gives us that extra confidence to re-evaluate the filters and be able to understand, that although the filter did not hit this draw, the rows filtered still have clout in the future draws (Springbok's offset)
Springbok, your RSI is solved by the LLB (Lowest Left Button)
I agree this program, in the hands of somebody who has read this entire thread, and understands it
, now has one of the most powerful programs available to analyse the lotto and become a professional lottery investor, instead of just the run-of-the-mill gambler.Regards
Patrick
Hi Patrick
Thinking about Winnalotto-sangoma edition, maybe it can join the list of South African inventions like boerewors, kreepy krauli. the assegai, chakalaka, dolosses, tomato bredie, biltong, G6 cannon, mine proof vehicles, pebble nuclear reactors, rondavels. etc. Perhaps the president will give us a medal.
Thinking about Winnalotto-sangoma edition, maybe it can join the list of South African inventions like boerewors, kreepy krauli. the assegai, chakalaka, dolosses, tomato bredie, biltong, G6 cannon, mine proof vehicles, pebble nuclear reactors, rondavels. etc. Perhaps the president will give us a medal.