I don't know what a lottery system is anymore, I thought I knew but now I am not so sure. I have written many
different lottery programs over many many years and I now think that none of them could be called a system. I
use to think that a system was anything that was made up of smaller parts that functioned as a whole. I have
now come to the conculsion that every lottery software is nothing more then a wheel. Some wheel numbers in a
random manner and others wheel numerically. Any analysis that is peformed and that includes everything one
can conceive is just a filter no matter how complex or simple it might be. I have a AI/bayesian predictor that was
written over many years but it is still just a basic filter in what it does. Most people think of wheels as a way to
get a guaranteed hit (x of x) prize if your list of numbers contains so many of the numbers drawn. I now think
that all lottery programs do this same thing except they don't give a guarantee win because to many variables
are used to calculate all the different ways to win a prize. All lottery software seeks to remove the unlikely and
keep the likely however what is likely? What we should be focused on is analysis which will most often lead to
some sort of statistical answer which does not offer any real help. Sure some of the time it is bound to be correct
but if something existed that could be defined as a system then it would win over and over. Some will find this
hard to swallow but it is true.
The mear fact that statistical analysis can never accomplish this should cause a person to rethink what they use
and how they use it. I always rate how I am doing by tracking how many of the variables that I choose correctly
because like the wheel with a win guarantee if I choose correctly then I will win a JP. I have had days where I
missed only one setting and hit a couple 2 of 5's and other days when I missed 5 or more and hit several 4 of 5's.
How many filters are needed to reduce the sets to a playable amount is another factor and I always say fewer
choices means fewer mistakes. If a program uses the most advanced math to choose what set or sets to play
then it is still rejecting all the others or filtering the rest out. The data that we use in our analysis has a large
effect on how we do. If we or the program we use can't make since of this data then it will never perform better
then a random QP. That is not to say that it will never win but if it does then it is just a chance event.
Before we can even know how our system is doing we must know where it is lacking and what if any changes is
needed. Lets say that you select 20 numbers from the pool but you only end up with 2 or 3 correct. A random
selection of 20 numbers from a pool of 39 which produces only 2 or 3 of the correct numbers is exactly what is
expected so if your method produces 2 or 3 numbers it shows no advantage whatsoever. Now if you can select
20 numbers and get 4 or 5 correct most of the time then you are doing quite well. If you are only getting 2 or 3
correct then you need to change how you are making selections or drop the process all togeather and try something
else.
I stopped picking numbers along time ago and started selecting digits because most of the time I would choose
less then the expected. I often have at least 4 of 5 numbers in play now but getting them all on the same line
is something else. I don't mean to sound all doom and gloom but I hope people take what I have said here to
heart. Don't kid yourself about how you are doing, I have been active in lottery analysis for over 20 years and
even with the success I have had I am still looking for something better all the time. You must allow yourself to
move around and look at other things that could help. For the last few weeks I have been doing much thinking
and I have concluded that much of my success comes from my ability to visually see what will hit. All the analysis
I do only accounts for about 10% of my choices.
RL