Hi,
Thanks everybody for your input.
Paint1,
For 6/47 here is one of my summaries over 201 games. The top horizontal row identifies lottery ball (1-5). The vertical column identifies how many times each occurrence occurred. So, Paint1, your assumption appears to be basically correct. My chart below would say that the best bet over a 5 game span would be 0-times, 0-times, 0-times, 1-times, and 1 to 2 times for the last ocurrence value. This proves to be a valuable filter, however it also leaves you with a very large amount of combinations to choose from. I typically use 3 different game ranges using the analysis as below as a filter. But, it isn't enough, because I have been unable to find a method to make the correct numbers somehow spike so that I can identify them.
5 GAME |
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
0 |
200 |
184 |
125 |
57 |
13 |
|
1 |
1 |
17 |
76 |
132 |
98 |
|
2 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
12 |
73 |
|
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
15 |
|
4 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2
|
MrBobb,
By keeping track of the last time each number occurred from actual picks for 5/39, I have the follow chart. The top horizontal row is each lottery ball (1-5). The vertical row is how many games back +1, each number hit. As you can see 23.5% of the actual numbers picked occurred in the last two games. Even though I track this way, I have yet to find anything really useful to do with it. There is so much varience in the data, that it is hard to lock anything down reliably.
|
L1 |
L2 |
L3 |
L4 |
L5 |
TOT |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
373 |
94 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
471 |
12.6 |
1 |
197 |
158 |
49 |
4 |
0 |
408 |
10.9 |
2 |
93 |
156 |
98 |
23 |
2 |
372 |
9.97 |
3 |
45 |
126 |
98 |
48 |
4 |
321 |
8.6 |
4 |
16 |
75 |
96 |
51 |
16 |
254 |
6.81 |
5 |
9 |
55 |
97 |
59 |
12 |
232 |
6.22 |
6 |
9 |
35 |
76 |
65 |
25 |
210 |
5.63 |
7 |
2 |
23 |
70 |
74 |
27 |
196 |
5.25 |
8 |
2 |
9 |
45 |
62 |
31 |
149 |
3.99 |
9 |
1 |
6 |
42 |
61 |
41 |
151 |
4.05 |
10 |
0 |
5 |
25 |
64 |
45 |
139 |
3.72 |
11 |
0 |
2 |
15 |
55 |
50 |
122 |
3.27 |
12 |
0 |
3 |
14 |
40 |
32 |
89 |
2.38 |
13 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
29 |
39 |
73 |
1.96 |
14 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
34 |
48 |
84 |
2.25 |
15 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
14 |
35 |
51 |
1.37 |
16 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
15 |
29 |
49 |
1.31 |
17 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
17 |
30 |
48 |
1.29 |
18 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
10 |
36 |
47 |
1.26 |
19 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
8 |
26 |
35 |
0.94 |
20 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
22 |
26 |
0.7 |
21 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
26 |
28 |
0.75 |
22 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
27 |
27 |
0.72 |
23 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
17 |
18 |
0.48 |
24 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
14 |
15 |
0.4 |
25 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
18 |
20 |
0.54 |
26 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
13 |
14 |
0.38 |
27 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
7 |
8 |
0.21 |
28 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
14 |
16 |
0.43 |
29 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
6 |
0.16 |
30 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
0.05 |
31 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
6 |
0.16 |
32 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
0.05 |
33 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
5 |
0.13 |
34 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
7 |
7 |
0.19 |
35 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
4 |
0.11 |
36 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
3 |
0.08 |
37 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
5 |
0.13 |
38 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
6 |
0.16 |
39 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
0.05 |
40 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
5 |
0.13 |
41 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
0.05 |
42 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0.03 |
43 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
44 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0.03 |
45 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0.03 |
46 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
47 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0.03 |
48 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
49 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
50 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
747 |
747 |
747 |
747 |
744 |
3732 |
100 |
RJoh,
I like your alpha substitution method as a way to identify patterns.
To all,
I guess I didn't communicate very well. Give me some time for programming and anlalysis and we'll see what comes out of my original comments.
I would have you consider this:
What is the best game range to use or sets of game ranges to use?
How exact or generalized should a filter/reduction method be?
Perhaps all the tools to pick the right lotto numbers are already here at the LP, but the right way to summarize the data isn't. There are so many methods, but none of them are making the correct numbers somehow standout from the rest. So you are left with guessing or quick picking from a large amount of filters/reduced combinations.