I will be doing a fair bit more testing first AllanB
Once again I was stunned by the relatively simple yet abstract solution.
I had been digging a deep hole chasing an elusive variable. Numbers everywhere as I dug up to 50 layers deep and none of them made sense.
In the end the answer was only 3 layers deep. It comes down to proportional ratio's of dynamic variables.
As you will have found in your quests with gates and filters that every number in every game chops and changes with what triggers it. Trying to find an underlying pattern of what governs this is exhaustive, it may result in some success on occasions but without full success across all the numbers or any long term consistency.
My proportional ratios of dynamic variables seems to be the best approach so far for me. The testing results have been astounding, almost too astounding. This makes me or should I say drives me to dig through and quadruple check everything. I have not changed anything apart from the level at which I extract my variables and then includedvthem into my proportioning algorithm. This algorithm desensitises the variables, for example I have discovered that my variables conform to a natural log function. This discovery then allowed my to fill in data gaps for non data areas. In other words it allowed me to derive values for non results, non results being just what they are, missing data as a ball had not dropped in that measurement area. Filling in the blanks so that I could "assume" results then allows me to compare meaningful information and to then normalise and rationalise that data.
I can then use that data in my proportioning algorithm.
And it seems to be working. The elusive was the missing data. It was throwing my results sideways. They would work on some occasions and fail miserably on others.
Having consistent baseline values that I can now feed into the multilevel proportioning algorithm is producing much more meaningful and consistent results. Even though I'm essentially using phantom data so to speak, maybe that I have found those phantom wabbits.
So to me as exciting as this is appearing from the perspective of potential financial benefit I am actually more curious and excited about what it may mean regarding randomness?
Is what we are calling random truely random? Or is it a matter of us being unable to derive a pattern because of our limited vision? Is there even a pattern?
From our current perspectives it appears not as the data we analyze is full of "holes".
But what if we fill in the holes? What then do we see? Superficially we still see random outcomes, and for all Intent's and purposes this is true. At out level of evaluation and depth of understanding they are truely random to us.
Unless we learn to dig deeper, to view things that are not as if they are, to learn to combine alternate outcomes into a singular result. To even dare assume that ALL results are equal and have happened, yet in our reality only one of them appears, only one if them actually happens. So what is happening in other realities then? Are there really other realities? Is there potentially another me in another reality typing the very same thing and wondering like I am?
So for me and my results the questions are just beginning. What I set out to achieve has morphed into a deeper question about the fundamentals of what does this actually reveal?
I will hopefully end up financially secure enough to spend more time and energy trying to logically lay down my process into a paper.
Something that in due course I will release for peer review and analysis. I am sure that greater minds than mine and a combination of their merits will be able to find new discoveries.
Also I don't really want to be potentially remembered as the man who broke lotto.
It's all very large!