- Home
- Premium Memberships
- Lottery Results
- Forums
- Predictions
- Lottery Post Videos
- News
- Search Drawings
- Search Lottery Post
- Lottery Systems
- Lottery Charts
- Lottery Wheels
- Worldwide Jackpots
- Quick Picks
- On This Day in History
- Blogs
- Online Games
- Premium Features
- Contact Us
- Whitelist Lottery Post
- Rules
- Lottery Book Store
- Lottery Post Gift Shop
The time is now 12:33 pm
You last visited
April 29, 2024, 12:33 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)
Cycles - Interesting NumbersPrev TopicNext Topic
-
Dr, I would assume that the approach I take would work just as well on your game and maybe even better.
A game with a deeper number history would also be beneficial.
-
I think I need to talk to a geologist. I'm now finding fault lines, of a digital nature.
They seem to lead to focal points in my data.
I shared in an earlier post the surface maps I generate. The fault lines are specific locations where once I layer multiple surface Map's on top of each other then they show up in locations of growth.
This just gets weirder and weirder.
-
I have:
1. 5625000 potential bunny locations in my data grid. This number is static.
2. 84000 locations that my bunnies carrying 45 numbers have visited in the past. This number is dynamic and grows by 45 each game.
3. 11178 locations where bunnies carrying the winning numbers have popped up. This number is dynamic and grows by 6 each game.
1. Is a mapping base that can show all potential locations for bunnies to inhabit at each game. I say it is static only because it is the number at which I have chosen to limit my map resolution due to the processing power needed to generate the grid across all games history. So far we have nearly 2000 historical games, so multiply my data points by that number of games and you get an idea of what I am dealing with.
However the 5625000 only represents a 2nd level mapping resolution. I can go to an almost infinite numbers of levels but for every level increase the number of data points square's. So as big as my current number sets are if I had the processing capacity I could increase my resolution significantly.
2. This number shows me the locations at which my bunnies are and have been. It increases by 45 each game. Now given how many potential location exist in point 1 for these bunnies to visit they are creatures of habit and tend to like to visit different locations many times over. This is the mud slide map that I put up in earlier posts. It shows different elevations that the bunnies have visited over time.
3. Shows my the locations at which the bunny popped up. Again and depending on elevation these bunnies seem to show behavioural traits that when watched for long enough you can begin to predict their movements. There is a place however within these locations that forms a band of elevation in which phantom or quantum bunnies seem to exist and cause trouble.
Outside of this band most bunnies are reasonably predictable in their behaviour and movements. It may be that I need to increase my resolution in this specific elevation to better observe the bunnies behaviour in this zone.
Just thought I would post this up as a record of what I am doing.
I honestly think that I am close to a solution, more so if I had greater processing capacity and better math and logic skills.
I am also a bit bemused by what I am finding. I am seeing patterns of what I can only describe as behaviour. Not conscious behaviour as such and perhaps I should say conformity rather than behaviour. The numbers I evaluate are showing conformity to curve, not a clean fit but within acceptable limits to fit a law of averages distribution over time.
To me this makes perfect sense, if we look at the numbers superficially as they have dropped over time we get a count distribution, and it seems that no one number wants to lag behind or surge forward too far without the others. I think this is the thing we all sense when we look at the numbers. We then try to apply every statistical approach and trick available to glean an insight to what may happen next
I also need to look at this within my data sets to see if any bias exists that is effecting any behaviour patterns.
It's all very large....
-
I find this interesting, however you may want to look at the works of Joseph Brierly. His BestLot software shows biases of numbers for larger lotteries like cash 5, mm, & pb. With the idea of cycles in mind you might also take a look at Lucky Sumz software there is some info on youtube about how it works. These are just software that i have used in the past that give useful indicators of what to look at but not really a complete system that i would use.
-
Quote: Originally posted by Hydromaln7 on Sep 14, 2018
I have:
1. 5625000 potential bunny locations in my data grid. This number is static.
2. 84000 locations that my bunnies carrying 45 numbers have visited in the past. This number is dynamic and grows by 45 each game.
3. 11178 locations where bunnies carrying the winning numbers have popped up. This number is dynamic and grows by 6 each game.
1. Is a mapping base that can show all potential locations for bunnies to inhabit at each game. I say it is static only because it is the number at which I have chosen to limit my map resolution due to the processing power needed to generate the grid across all games history. So far we have nearly 2000 historical games, so multiply my data points by that number of games and you get an idea of what I am dealing with.
However the 5625000 only represents a 2nd level mapping resolution. I can go to an almost infinite numbers of levels but for every level increase the number of data points square's. So as big as my current number sets are if I had the processing capacity I could increase my resolution significantly.
2. This number shows me the locations at which my bunnies are and have been. It increases by 45 each game. Now given how many potential location exist in point 1 for these bunnies to visit they are creatures of habit and tend to like to visit different locations many times over. This is the mud slide map that I put up in earlier posts. It shows different elevations that the bunnies have visited over time.
3. Shows my the locations at which the bunny popped up. Again and depending on elevation these bunnies seem to show behavioural traits that when watched for long enough you can begin to predict their movements. There is a place however within these locations that forms a band of elevation in which phantom or quantum bunnies seem to exist and cause trouble.
Outside of this band most bunnies are reasonably predictable in their behaviour and movements. It may be that I need to increase my resolution in this specific elevation to better observe the bunnies behaviour in this zone.
Just thought I would post this up as a record of what I am doing.
I honestly think that I am close to a solution, more so if I had greater processing capacity and better math and logic skills.
I am also a bit bemused by what I am finding. I am seeing patterns of what I can only describe as behaviour. Not conscious behaviour as such and perhaps I should say conformity rather than behaviour. The numbers I evaluate are showing conformity to curve, not a clean fit but within acceptable limits to fit a law of averages distribution over time.
To me this makes perfect sense, if we look at the numbers superficially as they have dropped over time we get a count distribution, and it seems that no one number wants to lag behind or surge forward too far without the others. I think this is the thing we all sense when we look at the numbers. We then try to apply every statistical approach and trick available to glean an insight to what may happen next
I also need to look at this within my data sets to see if any bias exists that is effecting any behaviour patterns.
It's all very large....
AMD Buldozer 8 core 64bit Black Edtion is several years old now it sells at some places on the net for as little as $90 bucks.. Do a custom build computer for cheap with lots of ram memory that, should help your cause..
-
Thanks lottologix.
Lucky sums is an interesting approach which I have done a similar thing to in the past. The logic of which can be applied to practically any kind of lottery where you are chasing repeat cycles frequency.
And they do happen. I mapped out repeats for 2, 3, and 4 numbers in consecutive games as well as number combinations in game is. How many counts of various number combinations such as 3 and 45 etc. trying to find any bias or pattern.
I did find that some appeared more than others but their frequency and placement over time was random.
Essentially it may give you a slight statistical advantage to play various combinations of pairs or doubles or triples but it is a very minor advantage and based on guessing that I he same could happen again.
Then tjer is what I call number curves, essentially the numbers that fall make a curve, you can very easily graph them across the numbers but a better way is to graph the number differentials. That is the differences between the numbers in a game when sorted in ascending order. So numbers 37 12 8 42 21 1 are 1 8 12 21 37 42. You then have 7 which is the did difference between 8 and 1 then 4 9 16 5 which are the differences between the remaining numbers.
This gives you what I call a differential curve, you can then check repeat patterns much easier because you are no longer looking at the numbers but the patterns that they result in.
I tried this Method and it failed miserably. Yes it allows you a normalised pattern base to compare but it does not allow you the capacity to tie the patterns back to specific numbers. You will also find regardless of the numbers and their repeats and cycles that ALL resulting patterns are DIFFERENT.
I only ever found one pattern that repeated itself in analysis of over 8000 games. This is because the games that have played out and their resulting patterns only represent a fraction of ALL the remaining near 8500000 potential patterns.
This is what makes statisticians adamant that you will never be able to predict future results from past games, there are just too many potential outcomes.
Based on my past work in pattern recognition I think the best we can do following this approach is a process of elimination by stripping out all number combinations that conform to past pattern outcomes. However you are still left with a very large remaining pattern pool from which to guess the outcomes.
Overall the thing with ALL existing software is that they adopt a specific way of analysis against the numbers. They then hit what is an insurmountable wall of reality, their systems fail to generate any meaningful outcomes. Some inadvertantly get some results which they then market the crap out of as claims and proof of their system being the best, but ultimately they all fall short.
But the people on the quest for the Holt grail of lotto have invested so much time, energy and resources that they need to at least try to get some return so they package their systems into a neat software bundle add in some wheeling mechanisms to help with final number guess and sell it if they can.
Unfortunately they become so heavily invested in their method they stop searching and ficus on software development and making a financial return on their efforts. They begin to realize that all their efforts have been in vain, they pull together the most promising elements of their systems and package it as a product rather than chasing down rabbit holes to try and find a solution.
And then you have the outright snake oilers. Scammers who try selling number sets against unsupported claims of millions won, preying on peoples desperation's.
Wow that turned into a rant pretty quick didn't it?
Morral to the story is that all that glitters is not gold.
I have modelled most systems and approaches. None of which gave ang degree of certainty. I find similar approaches in many systems packaged differently.
None of what I do is based on anything that I have seen in the past.
My system is still full of flaws and rabbit holes but what I do have so far is showing a significant statistical advantage, not enought to bet my life's work or savings on however.
So I keep chipping away at it, I almost gave up on many occasions hitting the same wall as everyone else with every other system and method.
But unlike them I have not spent thousands that I need a return on. I have simply spent time.
Again thanks for the heads up on those systems and sorry about the rant.
-
Thanks NR, sounds like a plan and confirms what the computer shop guys said. They started off trying to sell me a high spec gaming machine with VR comparability blah blah blah all way over my budget.
Ended up with a guy who can build a solid number crunching machine with a a back of RAM and the latest cooled CPU that will also cope well with graphics.
More of a machine built to handle CAD systems which is awesome as I do a lot of 3D CAD design as well.
-
Going Back to the Title of this Thread.
It is all about the Cycles. Not much has been said about Them here other than a few general references. Certainly there are no Specifics so Far. That is Great if you ask Me. Instead We have a discussion about Bunny movements and perhaps Breeding Habits. Again, I think this is Great. This is Brain Storming lending Value and insight to the Quest.
To take the Ideas from the Storm, It seams to me that We ought to know a bit about the Cycles that the Bunnies are Riding. Perhaps the only thing we need to know is the size of the Tires on Each Cycle. Put differently, How long is a Cycle? There are as many Cycles as there are Groups being formed. Let's say I am down a Rabbit Hole looking at a Set of Gates. In this case I have 5 Gates to pick from. By the Way, My Rabbits seldom dig a new burrow, they travel through a set of Existing Tunnels. Back to the 5 Gates, Every Time there is a Draw, one of these 5 Gates will open. This happens at Every Bend in Every Tunnel on Every Draw. Every Gate is in a Cycle with it's Gate Mates. In this Case, There are 5 Options taken 1 at a time, therefore the length of the Cycle is 5. Using Igor's Structure, Each Gate is assigned a Block Value from 1-3, based on how many times it opened in the Cycle. Standing in front of these 5 Gates, wondering which one will open Next, I look at the Values in this case 1-3 and Select one of them. With 5 Gates and 3 Blocks, there will always be at least 2 Gates in either the 2 or 3 Selection. What that means is that a Screen Drops in front of the Real Gate, and Only the Gates matching the Block Open. When 2 or more gates open, you know that at least 1 of them is Wrong. No wonder it is so hard. Now listen to this. You can Drop the Vale and just decide if you think that the Last Gate that opened will open again. I submit to you that if you can find enough Gates that you think will Open Again (Not Change from Last), Find the Rabbits with the most Gate Matches, You will have The Winner in a Small group of Rabbits. Oh I forgot to state where I was. I am still on Planet Pick 4. Over There on Planet 6/45 it is much larger, because you have to find 6 Bunnies instead of 1. I am guessing that this will be at least (Planet 4) to the 6th power in difficulty.
So just a closing thought. Using our fancy Excel Files to Crunch the Numbers for Every Rabbit and their Movements we face a daunting task Navigating and Mapping our tunnels or the Surface of a Mud Slide. Perhaps the answer lies in a lack of movement.
-
"Perhaps the answer lies in a lack of movement."
A very astute observation AB.
Gates, cycles, wabbits, bunnies, warrens, mud slides, mountains and every other analogy we have used are quite a tangled web of descriptions to try to guess what the other means, and to some degree rightly so. A bit of cryptic thrown in to protect one's findings but to also encourage discussion and thought seems to inspire me quite nicely on different ways to think about different scenarios.
Now "lack of movement" quite simply, sometimes what does not happen is just as important as what does happen. Everyone is always looking at what has happened, which numbers have dropped, when they dropped, etc..etc..etc.
What "has" happened gives us a very small statistical data set from which long sweeping assumptions and extrapolated conclusions are then drawn.
What "has not" happened gives us a much larger statistical data set against which we can then make the same assumptions and extrapolated conclusions, or perhaps see "new" things.
In my 6/45 world each week 6 numbers drop and give "new" information on what has been happening. But conversely there are 39 numbers that did not drop and also give "new" information.
So that gives a little insight into observation.
Now, cycles. These are not the riding machines, these are events that happen over a predefined reference of time. Scientifically and within my field of engineering ALL events are measured over time, velocity, deflection, displacement etc. etc. now going off on a tangent to Star Trek the Borg queen has a line where she states "you humans think in such 3 dimensional terms".
That line has stuck with me throughout my life, sad and tragic but true. Intuitively we relate to and evaluate most things within the constraints of our experiences or knowledge. I like to try to think beyond my limits, I try to look at all things without my dimensionally blinkered vision, it was recently reported that Mr Einstein could think and actually visualise things in the 4th dimension, now that takes a bit of brain HP to do as it involves concepts like the shapes that essentially turn themselves inside out, inside out, inside out .... infinitely, look it up fascinating stuff.
But I digress, back to cycles. Who says we have to measure the cycles of numbers against time? Who says we have to measure that actual numbers? Who says that we have to measure the cycles?
They exist in and of themselves, and within the cycles there are frequencies, now that complicates things again doesn't it? Cycles and frequencies within cycles brings us right back to time as both are measured against time to derive a meaning. But if we extract time then we are left with a jumble of information and a lot of it, so how do we then measure that? Hint, just count it.
Mr Lustig had a bit of insight on this one. He used a method by which he added some outcomes of various statistical approaches, this is what he referred to as his approach. I believe it gave him a statistical advantage but it was not an all encompassing algorithm that everyone is trying to come up with that will simply spit out the winning numbers. I think his approach was static and applied within the constraints of time measurement against a dynamic data set. I think it helped him in some of his endeavours, I also think that after his "big win" (which I also believe was mostly luck) he then reverted back to brute force attack against higher potential odds of winning games that he played, utilising the resources he had in an effort to hit another big one. Eventually though and with limited success his resources where drained with this approach and so he became a publisher, spruking his wares based on his past success. Understanding that others had the same desperate desire to win like he had and utilising that as leverage of proof of his systems.
And again I digress.
Personally I believe that the answer is a dynamic one that exists within the cycles and frequencies of what did and did not happen outside of time.
That leaves a lot of room for interpretation and exploration.
Bunnies, wabbits, gates and holes, islands, mud slides, volcanoes and topography. These are all just simply "snap shots" of the dynamic data sets that are constantly evolving within and through the outcomes of the games. Every new result, every new number drop, every draw of every week changes the dynamic of these outcomes.
Mathematical and statistical measures and models that result in static outcomes do NOT work in this dynamic field of data. They simply show a past event, a picture of the clouds on the horizon at a specific location in time at the last sunset. Change any of those variables and the picture changes, location, angle, time, exposure etc.
Remove the variable of time, or in my case constrain it, and the data shows an exposure or movement of data over time. It is this data set that I can dynamically see and track, it is against this data set that I can then map the specific location of various "numbers" (not the actual numbers but events related to them and which can apply to any of them). I can see the event horizon so to speak but am at this time limited in my ability to predict accurately beyond it, I have some success in doing it depending on specific locations of data and measurements.
But I also have a lot of "noise", a lot of phantoms or quantum bunnies zipping around giving false positives and other such things within a bandwidth of the data.
So I am frustrated, I know I have hit on something, the results tell me this. But trying to elaborate, define or measure it is eluding me.
I touched on a point in an earlier post, a point that I played out in my minds eye and pondered, one that still haunts me and to be quite honest is frightening. It keeps me awake at nights.
I have gone from simply trying to find something in a number set that might be able to give a statistical advantage to seeing something much bigger than I had envisioned.
I intuitively know that there is something more to my calculations, something beyond my plane of vision, beyond the event horizon. There is some sort of deeply nested order within what appears to us as a chaotic outcome. Layered and layered and layered down deep. Hints of this seen in recent AI and NN studies of lottery outcomes, a hint of a pattern, a hint of something happening in the background.
Honestly I wish I could find it, but I don't have the math background to understand every conceivable approach possible. I am still interested in winning, I mean who wouldn't be? But at a deeper level I see some deeper implications of proving this out.
I made light in my past post quoting a Queen song line and a Matrix pill reference. But now I wonder? I really do wonder?
Is there an intelligent design that exists that could present almost everything we understand within physical limits and beyond that as seemingly chaotic outcomes?
And again I digress.....
It's all very large.
-
FYI just a performance update.
All my last lot of modelling has come up with 6 numbers correct from a pool of between 18 to 22 numbers instead of 45.
So I have essentially cut in half the selection range of numbers to come up with the 6 winning numbers in EVERY game.
This is an improvement against what was roughly every 8 to 12th game.
Next step is to improve on the total number of numbers, trying to reduce the pool of 22 numbers down to 18 or less consistently while maintaining the 6 correct every game.
If I can achieve this with my current play strategy then I will be able to win every week.
Currently you can not play 22 numbers straight, you can only play up to 18 numbers at a cost of around $20k per game to do so.
Modelling an 18 number selection from the current pool of 22 has seen a hit rate of one in every 6 - 8 games or there about. That would mean an initial investment of around $160k or maybe more depending on the past performance frequency and variables. the current 6 - 8 game winning cycle fluctuates when I back model to different time frames and can on occasion hit a 20 week gap.
20 weeks would equate to around a $400k investment to win first division, if that win is on a less than $2m prize with multi winning tickets you would come out close to even or maybe down.
Big money, big risks.
Not that I need to worry as I don't have that type of cash to play around with, hence the drive to improve my hit rates and improve the odds of winning and reduce the cost of play.
-
Performance update #2.
As in earlier post prior to performance update I have mentioned the data set that I use as a measuring stick against current number positions.
By back checking formula paths and references which I do regularly I have just discovered that I was making an error. Well not exactly an error but missing something critical.
I had been checking raw data sets against raw data sets that corresponded to different intensity factors and had not normalised that data to make them all appear on the same datum.
Normalising is that act of making all the numbers conform to a set of constraints, for a way to measure them side by side.
Simply I take the number 1, I then divide it by the largest number in my data series which may have up to 45 numbers, I then multiply that by the actual number in the data series. So as a basic example:
Largest # in series = 72
Actual number in series = 52
Equation = 1/72x52
I do this for every series of numbers.
Why? Because that series demonstrates a specific behaviour that I want to show within constraints.
What I missed? I was only normalising in one dimension, the X axis. I had missed that the Y axis in my data also has a pattern of behaviour attached to it.
So now I am normalising the data in 2 axis of X,Y and then I need to rationalise them by multiplying one against the other.
Having fixed this I have now run through the number selection processor again for a couple of examples (these take ages to process due to the data depth and size).
Gotta say it's looking somewhat promising at this early stage, has crunched out 8 numbers for one game and hit 3 so far, if it keeps this hit rate for the current game and can be proved across multiple games then I am onto a winner.
Wait, now 10 numbers and 4 hits.
Exciting and nerve racking all at once, hoping not just a fluke on this one game. Could turn out well with this one but then skip being able to achieve the same outcome for a number of games and then bang another great one.
Time will tell.
It's all very large...
-
Turned out to be a trojan horse.
Was looking good for a couple of games but then dropped it.
Problem area is my quantum bunnies.
It seems that they have no regard for time or distance / space.
They can be anywhere and everywhere all at once.
They exist in a dimensionless dimension, if there even is such a place. Devoid of anything but full of everything.
Anyone got a clue on how to track dimensionless bunnies?
At least when I suspected that they where quantum bunnies I could try to apply some type of tracking.
But dimensionless bunnies = Phantom bunnies.
No wonder Mr Einstein called them spooky.
Having said that I just thought of a way to track them, remove time from all my order of equations, then remove distance. All I should have left then would be an instance on a non dimensional linear scale. If I apply the same against all other instances I wonder what it would show?
Ha, I've been trying to coax them into my dimensional playground of time and space. Might have to go over to their dimensionless field and see what's happening.
It's all very large.
-
Been looking into this dimensionless dimension a little bit more.
Working in fluid mechanics I am familiar with dimensionless numbers, look them up Google is your friend here.
Of particular interest to me in this area is the Froude number. It is a dimensionless number that essentially relates to flow or velocity and drag or resistance to inertia or movement.
The relationship between the 2 derive a dimensionless value. Very basic description but kept simple for conceptual understanding.
I am now wondering if I have been looking at this all wrong?? I've been in a mind set of intensity within a field of values, maybe i should switch across to resistance in a field of values?
I can use the same conceptual approach to the evaluation of a Froud number, I can look at dimensionless values in series and then also in macro across all series to see if I can tease out a relationship.
The next problem would be then bringing back those findings to a dimensional series, when I say dimensional series I mean time and distance. If I can bring my original data back to this with relevance to the the dimensionless findings??
Well, time to number crunch, will only run a small sample trial to see if it proves out anything.
-
So, I am now tagging bunnies in the phantom zone.
All well and good having no dimensional measurements for said bunnies but I found them very difficult to place.
Came up with an ingenious way of tagging them relative to their surroundings.
Seems that said bunnies are both resisting and intense at the same time, or maybe intensely resisting?
Have put some order to my chaos by tagging, next comes tracking which should be interesting to see if my computer will cope given the data sets generated being another order of complexity above prior sets due to tagging.
I know I'm heading in the right direction, well sorta.
-
Quote: Originally posted by Hydromaln7 on Sep 19, 2018
So, I am now tagging bunnies in the phantom zone.
All well and good having no dimensional measurements for said bunnies but I found them very difficult to place.
Came up with an ingenious way of tagging them relative to their surroundings.
Seems that said bunnies are both resisting and intense at the same time, or maybe intensely resisting?
Have put some order to my chaos by tagging, next comes tracking which should be interesting to see if my computer will cope given the data sets generated being another order of complexity above prior sets due to tagging.
I know I'm heading in the right direction, well sorta.
All the talk about rabbits reminds me of peter rabbit lol. Then the twist which is now dimensional bunnies??
First i was going to ask if you had blood ties to the Mcgreggor family tree,"Peter Rabbit the movie" then i saw,"phantom zone" and i said no-way definitely lineage to Danny Phantom or maybe both but is that possible?..
Ok seriously seems like your on to something..I have no idea what that is because half of what you say is so encrypted only you could possibly know.
keep tagging and tracking those bunnies Danny and sooner or later they will show themselves maybe only to tease you or maybe to please you, by standing still so you can catch up to them. Good Stuff
Strategies Timing Luck
It's all Guess-Work
