Strategies
- Thread starter lsimas
- Start date
Paying for any lottery "strategy" is a waste of money. Gail Howard perpetuates a lot of ignorant gambling fallacies. For example, she falsely claims that a combination with six consecutives numbers (e.g., 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 & 49) has less chance of being drawn than any other combination. One of her few true statements is:
Many people play a number because they think it's "due." They have the mistaken notion that in Lotto, everything has to even out. That simply is not true.
Good LUCK!
Many people play a number because they think it's "due." They have the mistaken notion that in Lotto, everything has to even out. That simply is not true.
Good LUCK!
Consecutive numbers
tomtom
Why consider 6 consecutive numbers coming out a joke? An unusual event sure, but any combination is unique by itself.
And what is a 6 consecutive number combination? Well basically, it is made out a starting number (which can be any number from 1 to 44) and then, 5 other numbers separated by an equal value between each of them (in this case, it is 1).
Is that impossible? Well. you might want to go back to draw #670 on June 23rd, 1990 and check the winning numbers (22-27-32-37-42-47). Anything unusual about those numbers? Well, the starting number here is 22 (yes, fairly high but not that unusual) and then, the difference between each other number is always the same, not 1 but 5 in this combination. So if this unlikely combination (by your standards) has come out, why not the famous 1-2-3-4-5-6 or any other combination of this nature.
So why consider the combination 12-24-32-36-39-47 (winning numbers in draw #2113) more likely to come out than 22-27-32-37-42-47 or 5-10-15-20-25-30. Space permitting, I could list here 13,981,703 combinations that have yet to appear. And it is most likely that the next winning combination will among these. But having said that, it is possible (2,113 chances out of 13,983,816) that one of the already winning combinations will repeat.
tomtom
Why consider 6 consecutive numbers coming out a joke? An unusual event sure, but any combination is unique by itself.
And what is a 6 consecutive number combination? Well basically, it is made out a starting number (which can be any number from 1 to 44) and then, 5 other numbers separated by an equal value between each of them (in this case, it is 1).
Is that impossible? Well. you might want to go back to draw #670 on June 23rd, 1990 and check the winning numbers (22-27-32-37-42-47). Anything unusual about those numbers? Well, the starting number here is 22 (yes, fairly high but not that unusual) and then, the difference between each other number is always the same, not 1 but 5 in this combination. So if this unlikely combination (by your standards) has come out, why not the famous 1-2-3-4-5-6 or any other combination of this nature.
So why consider the combination 12-24-32-36-39-47 (winning numbers in draw #2113) more likely to come out than 22-27-32-37-42-47 or 5-10-15-20-25-30. Space permitting, I could list here 13,981,703 combinations that have yet to appear. And it is most likely that the next winning combination will among these. But having said that, it is possible (2,113 chances out of 13,983,816) that one of the already winning combinations will repeat.
johnph77
Member
GillesD -
And that's where probability comes into play. In a 6/49 lottery, after the first draw, the odds of drawing the same combination of numbers again are 1::13,983,816. After the second draw the chance of drawing any of the two preceding numbers is 2::13,983,816, and so on. But - when looking at the overall results of the drawings, the chances of having a duplicate set appear in any two previous drawings are ((1::13,983,816)+(1::13,983,815)+(1::13,983,814)+.....). Given this, somewhere around the 5,600,000th drawing (around 40% of the total possibilities, if memory serves me correctly) those odds added together will sum up to the point where the chances of having a duplicate set of numbers in any two of the previous draws will be 1::1. Furthermore, when the number of draws approaches the number of possibilities, not only will you not have drawn all possible draws you probably will have one sequence repeated 5 times in the results and more than a few triples.
gl
john
And that's where probability comes into play. In a 6/49 lottery, after the first draw, the odds of drawing the same combination of numbers again are 1::13,983,816. After the second draw the chance of drawing any of the two preceding numbers is 2::13,983,816, and so on. But - when looking at the overall results of the drawings, the chances of having a duplicate set appear in any two previous drawings are ((1::13,983,816)+(1::13,983,815)+(1::13,983,814)+.....). Given this, somewhere around the 5,600,000th drawing (around 40% of the total possibilities, if memory serves me correctly) those odds added together will sum up to the point where the chances of having a duplicate set of numbers in any two of the previous draws will be 1::1. Furthermore, when the number of draws approaches the number of possibilities, not only will you not have drawn all possible draws you probably will have one sequence repeated 5 times in the results and more than a few triples.
gl
john
Re: Consecutive numbers
Well,
let’s see …. There should be 44 combinations enclosing 6 consecutive numbers. In a 649 lottery the odds are 1:13,983,816 
. This means chances for a 6 consecutives combination are 1: 317814. There are 2 draws per week, which suggests that the 6 consecutives may ( or should) appear during the next 158907 weeks, or (approximately) 3047.5 years. I have not heard for either a lottery player that was born 3047.5 years ago or a lottery with a 6 consecutives draw, eh…Of course, from time to time a few fairly weird draws may occur, but they are expected once in a (very) while, and some patient players may have taken advantage of that . For example, the most ( if not all) draws with 3 consecutive numbers have had a ( sometimes more than one) 
winner…
GillesD said:
Well,
let’s see …. There should be 44 combinations enclosing 6 consecutive numbers. In a 649 lottery the odds are 1:13,983,816 . This means chances for a 6 consecutives combination are 1: 317814. There are 2 draws per week, which suggests that the 6 consecutives may ( or should) appear during the next 158907 weeks, or (approximately) 3047.5 years. I have not heard for either a lottery player that was born 3047.5 years ago or a lottery with a 6 consecutives draw, eh…Of course, from time to time a few fairly weird draws may occur, but they are expected once in a (very) while, and some patient players may have taken advantage of that . For example, the most ( if not all) draws with 3 consecutive numbers have had a ( sometimes more than one) winner…Probabilities
tomtom
Your reasoning is very good but it goes both ways. Let's say you are betting every draw 44 combinations (chosen by whatever method), then the same calculations also apply. And you realize that you do not have much chances of winning with your combinations. Luck will be the deciding factor.
Two other things, you may want to consider:
- Besides the 22-27-32-37-42-47 combination, you may also want to look at draw #1748 on Oct. 21, 2000. The winning numbers were 38-43-44-45-46-47. Again a high first number and then 5 consecutive numbers. Not what you would expect that often (only 1,892 such combinations even with a low first number) but this make two unlikely winning combinations in only 2,113 draws. Not bad.
- You may think the combination 2-5-13-24-32-43 (or 3-11-16-29-34-47 or ...) as fairly random and quite acceptable. But to me, they meet a very precise and definite (but not obvious) sequence which makes them equal to 1-2-3-4-5-6.
tomtom
Your reasoning is very good but it goes both ways. Let's say you are betting every draw 44 combinations (chosen by whatever method), then the same calculations also apply. And you realize that you do not have much chances of winning with your combinations. Luck will be the deciding factor.
Two other things, you may want to consider:
- Besides the 22-27-32-37-42-47 combination, you may also want to look at draw #1748 on Oct. 21, 2000. The winning numbers were 38-43-44-45-46-47. Again a high first number and then 5 consecutive numbers. Not what you would expect that often (only 1,892 such combinations even with a low first number) but this make two unlikely winning combinations in only 2,113 draws. Not bad.
- You may think the combination 2-5-13-24-32-43 (or 3-11-16-29-34-47 or ...) as fairly random and quite acceptable. But to me, they meet a very precise and definite (but not obvious) sequence which makes them equal to 1-2-3-4-5-6.
Great posts by fellow math gurus GillesD and johnph77. Hopefully, between the three of us, the level of lottery knowledge will continue to increase in this active board provided by LT.
Whenever I point out a common gambling/math fallacy, some people get so defensive that they accuse me of some evil agenda when all I am doing is sharing my knowledge.
Whenever I point out a common gambling/math fallacy, some people get so defensive that they accuse me of some evil agenda when all I am doing is sharing my knowledge.
Dennis Bassboss
Member
I will share more of my knowledge soon too....By the way
01-02-03-04-05-06
Never occured in any lotto...so far....That's a lot of draws in this whole big world...Any other combination (small sums and stuff) is not 01-02-03-04-05-06 in my opinion....
01-02-03-04-05-06
Never occured in any lotto...so far....That's a lot of draws in this whole big world...Any other combination (small sums and stuff) is not 01-02-03-04-05-06 in my opinion....
lsimas said:
I first used Gail Howards system 20 years ago and much of it is the same today. I still use some of her methods of number selection to this day and have used it in many pools etc. with decent results over the years. For someone starting to chart lotteries I don't think her software can be overlooked. Over 50 charts are included. The book is of little use, the real meat is the software, and the user manual with it. The wheel system add on is a convenience to have. Pricy, especially in Canuck Bucks. Hope this helps your decision.
Brad
Member
GH Advantage
Having used her program off and on for about 5 years I must agree that for stats it is good. Unless one is proficient in making their own with Excel or utilizing some available free sw, GH is fairly easy to use and as Karnac mentioned has many good charts. Predicting is left to the user, even Gail herself said in her guide that her Smart Picks chart should not be relied on exclusively (I never had much luck with it).
Initially I did use her wheel programs as well but then I graduated to making my own with free sw like CoverMaster. It's more flexible for my changing needs. Her wheels are O.K. but there are better programs for that. I think the basic GH program does come with a few wheels anyway, should check that first.
To sum up: GH is very good for stats, not that good for predicting (without user input), so so for wheeling.
Cheers
PS. be careful with her auto history updates, I have found errors in several files
Note: if you do find errors and contact 'her' with exact corrections she may send you a FREE Master Guide ... otherwise save some $$ by not buying it
Having used her program off and on for about 5 years I must agree that for stats it is good. Unless one is proficient in making their own with Excel or utilizing some available free sw, GH is fairly easy to use and as Karnac mentioned has many good charts. Predicting is left to the user, even Gail herself said in her guide that her Smart Picks chart should not be relied on exclusively (I never had much luck with it).
Initially I did use her wheel programs as well but then I graduated to making my own with free sw like CoverMaster. It's more flexible for my changing needs. Her wheels are O.K. but there are better programs for that. I think the basic GH program does come with a few wheels anyway, should check that first.
To sum up: GH is very good for stats, not that good for predicting (without user input), so so for wheeling.
Cheers
PS. be careful with her auto history updates, I have found errors in several files
Note: if you do find errors and contact 'her' with exact corrections she may send you a FREE Master Guide ... otherwise save some $$ by not buying it
Last edited:
powerball said:
I don't know which kind of knowledge you are talking about, but I presume you are referring to "expectation". So far as I know, GillesD knows a lot about that and he will not increase such knowledge. Many players know very much about that too. May be you are talking about something other than "expectation"
May be because lottery is not a math play/puzzle. If you use only the math logic you must not play.
If you play, your reasoning may be not logic for other people but it's for you, and that's not a fallacy: that's to play lottery.
Let's play 1,2,3,4,5,6 or 44,45,46,47,48,49 or any other combination. The reason you tell me to choose all of them or the first or the second, cannot be considered illogical before the draw.
When you choose to play you are making a math error but some math errors have made some guys rich. So let's try some math error too.
This is not a defensive/attacking thinking; it just put in question the relation between math and lottery.
Playing the lotto, is very much like the stock market.
There are no scientific math formulas.
It's all about studing trends, and being able to capitilize when the time is right.
Being a "math guru", I think your to close to the forest, to see the trees, consequently, you can't have fun, and enjoy playing the lotto, and trying to win money.
Try and apply some of the knowledge that some of the premier players here posses, and you'll see that , that knowledge is far superior, in it's thinking, than trying to impose mathematical calculations.
We're playing the lotto here, not trying to build a space ship, so lighten up PB.
Excellent comments Frank.
There are no scientific math formulas.
It's all about studing trends, and being able to capitilize when the time is right.
Being a "math guru", I think your to close to the forest, to see the trees, consequently, you can't have fun, and enjoy playing the lotto, and trying to win money.
Try and apply some of the knowledge that some of the premier players here posses, and you'll see that , that knowledge is far superior, in it's thinking, than trying to impose mathematical calculations.
We're playing the lotto here, not trying to build a space ship, so lighten up PB.
Excellent comments Frank.