And yes I have hinted at many elements of my method.
Everything that has been done in the past has all been static.
Recently with the advent of NN and AI systems an element of dynamic has been introduced. These facilitate a continuous refinement of the process in an effort to define the outcome.
I can tell you now that this will all fail because the answer is not in the actual numbers.
I have run just about ever conceivable statistical analysis on the numbers.
Which ever way you look at them you are defining static differences.
Which are hot?
Which are cold?
Last doubles, triples, quads?
Sequential?
Averages over time?
Highest groupings?
Frequency analysis?
Recent hit history?
Counts?
Triggers and gates?
Pattern recognition?
And any other approach.
At the end of it all you simply end up with a way to define and compare static differences. None of which give a clear indication of what will happen, but some of which coincide with a number predication but without any consistency.
This is something that I believe drives people on in the search, a glimpse of something here that seems to conform to human 3 dimensional logic. And just as quick as it appeared...... It's gone (quantum bunnies).
It is a math solution, as well as a logic process, and an initiative selection process base on these combined.
Whatever develops as the ultimate solution will be a dynamic one.
Not necessarily new math, not new processes, not new programs or AI's.
A new way to look at data and quantify where it stands and what it is doing.