Shout out

 Casual
 Posts: 18
 Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2014 8:19 am
Shout out
Hi, Just a quick shout out to all here. Just joined the forum after reading Anastasios PDF on number prediction and randomness (not actual title).
Quick background, engineer based in Australia. Very good with statistical analysis, have been running analysis on Oz based lotto systems for the past 6 months with some very interesting findings that concure with Anastasios musings.
Essientially what I have found.... correction, what I am assuming I have found is that there is actually something driving the numbers that lotto games select. I have run some very large number sets through some very advanced statistical analysis and also non standard analysis equations and formulas I derived, these are essentially pointing out that the falling of numbers is actually a harvesting of numbers.
To explain... What we see and account for as random events appears to be a very very small data sample from a much large data set. 6 numbers being drawn are part of a much larger number set. What we see in the 6 numbers would equate to one band of light frequency being displayed through one pixel on a screen that is as big as the universe! So we see a very small amount of what is in fact a much larger data set.
It would be very interesting to run multiple lotto machines in a controlled environment continuously so as to achieve one draw of 6 numbers every second and to then collate that drawn number and see if we can tease out a relationship. If my theory is correct and if the environment is controlled sufficiently to reduce induced skew then I think we would all be very shocked.
I'm using Lotto machines as an example, perhaps this could be done by other means to see if we are in fact tapping into background data through seemingly random events?
The next step of my analysis is to try to derive a way to link past, present and future draws. As an excercise I did a 3, 4 and 5 number repeating analysis. That is how often do specific number sets repeat. To my surprise they all did to differing degrees of magnitude, that is more 3 repeats than 4 repeats and more 4's than 5's etc. This tells me that if I play a specific set of numbers for long enough I will get a 4 or 5 number hit, if I choose numbers based on repeat intensity and frequency I can significantly improve this. If I study sufficient number sets I can find multiple hits for the same 4 number set, up to 6 times in one lotto game. If I port those same numbers to a different lotto game they fail which indicates a background relationship in the timing of the play and draw. The same works if I port the other lotto game results to the original game I evaluated.
Given that the timing of the draw seems to influence the effectiveness of repeat results I believe that there is some kind of link between the numbers. A cycle of some sort which is linked across time.
Anyway just some lotto ramblings to introduce myself and my current findings that concure with what many have a gut feel about.
Numbers_Guru (I wish)
Quick background, engineer based in Australia. Very good with statistical analysis, have been running analysis on Oz based lotto systems for the past 6 months with some very interesting findings that concure with Anastasios musings.
Essientially what I have found.... correction, what I am assuming I have found is that there is actually something driving the numbers that lotto games select. I have run some very large number sets through some very advanced statistical analysis and also non standard analysis equations and formulas I derived, these are essentially pointing out that the falling of numbers is actually a harvesting of numbers.
To explain... What we see and account for as random events appears to be a very very small data sample from a much large data set. 6 numbers being drawn are part of a much larger number set. What we see in the 6 numbers would equate to one band of light frequency being displayed through one pixel on a screen that is as big as the universe! So we see a very small amount of what is in fact a much larger data set.
It would be very interesting to run multiple lotto machines in a controlled environment continuously so as to achieve one draw of 6 numbers every second and to then collate that drawn number and see if we can tease out a relationship. If my theory is correct and if the environment is controlled sufficiently to reduce induced skew then I think we would all be very shocked.
I'm using Lotto machines as an example, perhaps this could be done by other means to see if we are in fact tapping into background data through seemingly random events?
The next step of my analysis is to try to derive a way to link past, present and future draws. As an excercise I did a 3, 4 and 5 number repeating analysis. That is how often do specific number sets repeat. To my surprise they all did to differing degrees of magnitude, that is more 3 repeats than 4 repeats and more 4's than 5's etc. This tells me that if I play a specific set of numbers for long enough I will get a 4 or 5 number hit, if I choose numbers based on repeat intensity and frequency I can significantly improve this. If I study sufficient number sets I can find multiple hits for the same 4 number set, up to 6 times in one lotto game. If I port those same numbers to a different lotto game they fail which indicates a background relationship in the timing of the play and draw. The same works if I port the other lotto game results to the original game I evaluated.
Given that the timing of the draw seems to influence the effectiveness of repeat results I believe that there is some kind of link between the numbers. A cycle of some sort which is linked across time.
Anyway just some lotto ramblings to introduce myself and my current findings that concure with what many have a gut feel about.
Numbers_Guru (I wish)
Re: Shout out
Welcome Numbers_Guru! And thank you for that overview.
I love this one sentence of yours, which maybe grabs the essence: "...to see if we are in fact tapping into background data through seemingly random events?"
I don't have a math background so for things to make sense to me, i need to find analogies  which may be farfetched but they work for me. The background data is the wind currents, the seemingly random events are the clouds moving (when you can't feel the wind from the ground). OR  the background data is the music, the seemingly random events are the dancers (when you don't hear the music).
Actually i can even come up with human behavioral analogies in psychology (which is my background) but I don't want this post to get too far off topic.
Anyhow, welcome again and please keep posting.
Sooz
I love this one sentence of yours, which maybe grabs the essence: "...to see if we are in fact tapping into background data through seemingly random events?"
I don't have a math background so for things to make sense to me, i need to find analogies  which may be farfetched but they work for me. The background data is the wind currents, the seemingly random events are the clouds moving (when you can't feel the wind from the ground). OR  the background data is the music, the seemingly random events are the dancers (when you don't hear the music).
Actually i can even come up with human behavioral analogies in psychology (which is my background) but I don't want this post to get too far off topic.
Anyhow, welcome again and please keep posting.
Sooz

 Site Admin
 Posts: 112
 Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 4:22 am
 Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Shout out
Yes welcome indeed Numbers_Guru,
Very interesting comments and observations. There will be others here who have the capacity to debate and discuss your points but most of us will have left our higher math well behind and so are reliant on tools like GAT to relieve us of the math load and present us with some data that we can use to hopefully make a good entry into the lottery.
Anastasios has presented a tool here which has a prediction capability – it has no algorithms regarding hot or cold numbers or due or not due numbers or any other facet of the draw history – it is dependent on the what he calls the ‘signature’ of the lottery. Now what that is Anastasios is not saying, but is quite capable of expressing the winning numbers in the GAT tables, the difficulty being – which is the best GAT for one to use at the next draw. Various ‘play’ scenarios are presented in these forum posts and I am sure someone with your math background will enjoy using the GAT tool.
draughtsman
Very interesting comments and observations. There will be others here who have the capacity to debate and discuss your points but most of us will have left our higher math well behind and so are reliant on tools like GAT to relieve us of the math load and present us with some data that we can use to hopefully make a good entry into the lottery.
Anastasios has presented a tool here which has a prediction capability – it has no algorithms regarding hot or cold numbers or due or not due numbers or any other facet of the draw history – it is dependent on the what he calls the ‘signature’ of the lottery. Now what that is Anastasios is not saying, but is quite capable of expressing the winning numbers in the GAT tables, the difficulty being – which is the best GAT for one to use at the next draw. Various ‘play’ scenarios are presented in these forum posts and I am sure someone with your math background will enjoy using the GAT tool.
draughtsman

 Casual
 Posts: 18
 Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2014 8:19 am
Re: Shout out
Hi All and thanks for the comments.
Sooz..
A shrink hey? Maybe you can explain why I dream in numbers and logic? I often find myself up against difficult math or physics issues and complex fluid mechanics in my profession as an engineer. Will try for hours to figure something out only to fail miserably, then at 3 am will wake up with the approach that solves the problem, not the specific math but the logic sequence to work through to achieve the outcome.
Sorry sounds like I'm chasing free therapy Just find it interesting how the best supercomputers in the world work, shut down all the random data from external sources such as sound, light, touch etc and my brain seems to start to compute out the problems I've encountered, then hey presto at some un godly hour wakes me up with a design or logic process to solve it.
Draughtsman..
Yes Anastasios is onto something, I think that some of the things I have derived from my study of the numbers correlate well with his observations. Although I have the signature of Numbers_Guru I am far from higher levels of math. Also need to state that I do not reference back to anyone else's methods or methodologies for solving lotto systems. I like to take a clean sheet approach and look for systems and relationships based on various logic approaches. I then use a simple spread sheet tool to play out the logic method. One thing I have found in doing this is that you do not blinker vision yourself to a prior used method. Another thing with studying numbers this way is that you do not limit yourself based on statistical approach.
Looking at large number sets and trying to tease out relationships is what I to my wifes dismay call fun. Every day I'm challenged with another approach that I can model in a spreadsheet and write code for. I come up with more logic approaches than I have time to investigate, and having done this for around a year now have discovered what many already know, we that humans apply logic to try to make sense of irrational things. Having said that though I have derived an approach to lotto numbers whereby I really only need to work out 2 numbers to achieve a winning six number set. On the surface that seems like wow but it involves playing up to 2000 sets of 2 numbers attached to "existing" numbers. So the 2 number sets need to be very accurate, which I can do very well if I use a historical calculation approach so that I achieve a 20% winning ratio, or in other words I have an algorithm that calculates past best matches based on up todate results.
To achieve the same accuracy for future unplayed results is what I am currently trying to achieve. One thing I have noted in my above results is that there is some kind of link from past numbers to future results. This is where Anastasios logic / approach is interesting, I had not considered a trend or what you called a signature in the numbers, I have been using the whole of the numbers to try to obtain a trend based on the fact that some numbers from one game can be related to the results of a prior game many year before. I'm now wondering if this signature is a part of the larger data set pattern that I can glimpse in my number analysis?
To that end I'm very interested in his work, but at the same time do not want to delve too deeply into his methods so that I can investigate and explore every option and method that presents itself to me.
I know that I am not the only one who claims to see something in the numbers, I also know about how our brains try to make sense of random patterns, a bit like seeing a bunny in the clouds. But I am sure that what I have discovered has to be more than chance, number sets that repeat themselves significantly more frequently than the statistical norm confirm this for me.
At the risk of sounding metaphysical "...to see if we are in fact tapping into background data through seemingly random events?" seems to echo through me.
Thanks again, I will pop back in on occasion and update.
Sooz..
A shrink hey? Maybe you can explain why I dream in numbers and logic? I often find myself up against difficult math or physics issues and complex fluid mechanics in my profession as an engineer. Will try for hours to figure something out only to fail miserably, then at 3 am will wake up with the approach that solves the problem, not the specific math but the logic sequence to work through to achieve the outcome.
Sorry sounds like I'm chasing free therapy Just find it interesting how the best supercomputers in the world work, shut down all the random data from external sources such as sound, light, touch etc and my brain seems to start to compute out the problems I've encountered, then hey presto at some un godly hour wakes me up with a design or logic process to solve it.
Draughtsman..
Yes Anastasios is onto something, I think that some of the things I have derived from my study of the numbers correlate well with his observations. Although I have the signature of Numbers_Guru I am far from higher levels of math. Also need to state that I do not reference back to anyone else's methods or methodologies for solving lotto systems. I like to take a clean sheet approach and look for systems and relationships based on various logic approaches. I then use a simple spread sheet tool to play out the logic method. One thing I have found in doing this is that you do not blinker vision yourself to a prior used method. Another thing with studying numbers this way is that you do not limit yourself based on statistical approach.
Looking at large number sets and trying to tease out relationships is what I to my wifes dismay call fun. Every day I'm challenged with another approach that I can model in a spreadsheet and write code for. I come up with more logic approaches than I have time to investigate, and having done this for around a year now have discovered what many already know, we that humans apply logic to try to make sense of irrational things. Having said that though I have derived an approach to lotto numbers whereby I really only need to work out 2 numbers to achieve a winning six number set. On the surface that seems like wow but it involves playing up to 2000 sets of 2 numbers attached to "existing" numbers. So the 2 number sets need to be very accurate, which I can do very well if I use a historical calculation approach so that I achieve a 20% winning ratio, or in other words I have an algorithm that calculates past best matches based on up todate results.
To achieve the same accuracy for future unplayed results is what I am currently trying to achieve. One thing I have noted in my above results is that there is some kind of link from past numbers to future results. This is where Anastasios logic / approach is interesting, I had not considered a trend or what you called a signature in the numbers, I have been using the whole of the numbers to try to obtain a trend based on the fact that some numbers from one game can be related to the results of a prior game many year before. I'm now wondering if this signature is a part of the larger data set pattern that I can glimpse in my number analysis?
To that end I'm very interested in his work, but at the same time do not want to delve too deeply into his methods so that I can investigate and explore every option and method that presents itself to me.
I know that I am not the only one who claims to see something in the numbers, I also know about how our brains try to make sense of random patterns, a bit like seeing a bunny in the clouds. But I am sure that what I have discovered has to be more than chance, number sets that repeat themselves significantly more frequently than the statistical norm confirm this for me.
At the risk of sounding metaphysical "...to see if we are in fact tapping into background data through seemingly random events?" seems to echo through me.
Thanks again, I will pop back in on occasion and update.

 Casual
 Posts: 18
 Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2014 8:19 am
Re: Shout out
So my stupid brain kept waking me up most of last night with logic strategies and number sequences.
Couldn't help thinking about the signature concept that Draughtsman mentioned.
So seeing as I couldn't sleep decided to put finger to keyboard and model a few scenarios .............
OK, ok, ok what?? No surely not?? Check double check, Check triple check, check and freakin out.
There is a ...... something, not sure what to call it but an exploit in the system based around .... well not a signature exactly but more like a fingerprint!
Quick overview..
1. Back checked number hits.
2. Set some logic rules to eliminate numbers and include numbers.
3. Results give play number constraints, that is the results of the logic process for number elimination ends up with Y number left to play.
4. Generally the Y number of numbers is between 18 to 23. So essentially I need to pick 6 from 18 to 23 numbers.
5. Based on 4. you end up with a hit rate if you play all 23 numbers of around 6%. For the game I modelled this works out to 86 wins out of 294 plays over 1436 games.
6. So you can't play system 23 for 294 games, way to expensive. So I set plays to be when Y=18 or System18. This works out to 31 System18 plays over 1436 games that would result in 7 1st division wins and a 23% win rate.
7. Spend for 31 System18 games would be around $390k. Actual winnings for 7 games corrected for 1 extra winner (me) would have equated to $3.8 million.
8. Total ahead = ~$3.4 million.
This was all achieved based on past results with no forward result contamination of the selected play numbers.
ARRRRGGGGHHHH why do I do this to myself?? Work out how to win at lotto and not have the financial means to achieve it???
The trick, secret, signature, fingerprint or whatever you want to call it is not a single style or approach. It lies in the numbers, the logic you adopt to "sort" the numbers and the strategy you adopt to play .
Just like a fingerprint that has many patterns, the actuality is that the numbers do follow "patterns", not a number pattern as such but a logic pattern none the less. To me this indicates that something bigger is at play in the background, something is governing.... no too strong a word, something is causing numbers to conform to a non constant constraint. I know that sounds counter logic but there seems to be a constraint that all numbers must adhere to at irregular intervals.
I think what I have achieved exploits this phenomenon.
Would be interested in any feedback.
Thanks,
Numbers
Couldn't help thinking about the signature concept that Draughtsman mentioned.
So seeing as I couldn't sleep decided to put finger to keyboard and model a few scenarios .............
OK, ok, ok what?? No surely not?? Check double check, Check triple check, check and freakin out.
There is a ...... something, not sure what to call it but an exploit in the system based around .... well not a signature exactly but more like a fingerprint!
Quick overview..
1. Back checked number hits.
2. Set some logic rules to eliminate numbers and include numbers.
3. Results give play number constraints, that is the results of the logic process for number elimination ends up with Y number left to play.
4. Generally the Y number of numbers is between 18 to 23. So essentially I need to pick 6 from 18 to 23 numbers.
5. Based on 4. you end up with a hit rate if you play all 23 numbers of around 6%. For the game I modelled this works out to 86 wins out of 294 plays over 1436 games.
6. So you can't play system 23 for 294 games, way to expensive. So I set plays to be when Y=18 or System18. This works out to 31 System18 plays over 1436 games that would result in 7 1st division wins and a 23% win rate.
7. Spend for 31 System18 games would be around $390k. Actual winnings for 7 games corrected for 1 extra winner (me) would have equated to $3.8 million.
8. Total ahead = ~$3.4 million.
This was all achieved based on past results with no forward result contamination of the selected play numbers.
ARRRRGGGGHHHH why do I do this to myself?? Work out how to win at lotto and not have the financial means to achieve it???
The trick, secret, signature, fingerprint or whatever you want to call it is not a single style or approach. It lies in the numbers, the logic you adopt to "sort" the numbers and the strategy you adopt to play .
Just like a fingerprint that has many patterns, the actuality is that the numbers do follow "patterns", not a number pattern as such but a logic pattern none the less. To me this indicates that something bigger is at play in the background, something is governing.... no too strong a word, something is causing numbers to conform to a non constant constraint. I know that sounds counter logic but there seems to be a constraint that all numbers must adhere to at irregular intervals.
I think what I have achieved exploits this phenomenon.
Would be interested in any feedback.
Thanks,
Numbers
Re: Shout out
Yaa, Numbers_Guru, seems to me that, where brain/mind/behavior is concerned, the more we know, the more we don't know. Love your easygoing conversationalist way of writing  I'm trying to hear it with an Australian accent. Wish i had something more mathematically relevant to say, but still wanted to acknowledge your post.
Ok, here's a couple of thoughts expressed nonmathematically that others here can probably express mathematically and apply it to lottery.
1) Life happen in cycles. Some people think that things happen analagous to the swings of a pendulum, from one extreme to the other. In my mind, a pendulum swing is quite different from a cycle. Seems to me that things happen in cycles, not in pendulum swings.
2) There's the Butterfly Effect. My absolute favourite nonmathematical expression of the Butterfly Effect is this Haiku "Drinking a cup of tea, I stop the war."
Take care, good luck,
Sooz
Ok, here's a couple of thoughts expressed nonmathematically that others here can probably express mathematically and apply it to lottery.
1) Life happen in cycles. Some people think that things happen analagous to the swings of a pendulum, from one extreme to the other. In my mind, a pendulum swing is quite different from a cycle. Seems to me that things happen in cycles, not in pendulum swings.
2) There's the Butterfly Effect. My absolute favourite nonmathematical expression of the Butterfly Effect is this Haiku "Drinking a cup of tea, I stop the war."
Take care, good luck,
Sooz

 Casual
 Posts: 18
 Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2014 8:19 am
Re: Shout out
Thanks Sooz,
Love the analogies.
Also love the statement "the more we know, the more we don't know", almost sounds like me, always telling the kids "The more you learn, the more you know just how much you don't know".
Agree with the cycles, time and season for everything, nothing new under the sun etc... Everything repeats, physics remains constant, the only thing that changes is how we learn to manipulate it.
Butterfly effect.... let's not get me started on that one. We could be here all day discussing quantum mechanics and physics as well as space time continuum etc, etc.
Someone once quoted me this "It's all very large", has stuck with me for decades now.
Anyway, currently trying to reduce play number sets based on recent findings to see if it can be done affordably.
Take care,
Numbers
Love the analogies.
Also love the statement "the more we know, the more we don't know", almost sounds like me, always telling the kids "The more you learn, the more you know just how much you don't know".
Agree with the cycles, time and season for everything, nothing new under the sun etc... Everything repeats, physics remains constant, the only thing that changes is how we learn to manipulate it.
Butterfly effect.... let's not get me started on that one. We could be here all day discussing quantum mechanics and physics as well as space time continuum etc, etc.
Someone once quoted me this "It's all very large", has stuck with me for decades now.
Anyway, currently trying to reduce play number sets based on recent findings to see if it can be done affordably.
Take care,
Numbers

 Casual
 Posts: 18
 Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2014 8:19 am
Re: Shout out
So I haven't been around here for a while.
Life has been keeping me busy.
Just a quick update on my approaches to playing lotto.
Essentially I hit a wall for a few years, was not able to achieve any progress in improving my odds.
I had two objectives.
1 Try to reduce the pool of numbers down from 45 to approx 20.
2 Try to ensure that that the resulting pool maintained the 6 winning numbers on a viable win cycle. So around every 6 weeks.
Both big asks and fails. Like I said I hit a wall, there seemed no way to achieve the consistency needed to make it financially viable.
And then I had an epiphany, not saying exactly what it was as it's still very early in the testing. But the results I was chasing have panned out well for a number of historical games analysis.
I now end up with a number pool of between 18 to 22 numbers. Within this pool I achieve 6 winning numbers in my 6/45 game on an approx. 6 week cycle.
I have also just today figured out a method of improving on this which I hope will either reduce my number pool or improve my winning hit rate.
All of what I am doing is driven from maths, nothing is any metaphysical airy fairy stuff.
A major discovery is that historically we have all applied statistics to number analysis. That's all well and good but as the name implies it's static. So we all apply static analysis to what I have discovered is a dynamic data set. We should be using dynamics! A whole new frontier in which the statistical equations and approaches morph and become dynamic in the analysis of what is essentially a dynamic field of historical data.
Taking this approach has allowed me to achieve my current results, and based on my initial findings of another element should allow even better outcomes.
It's all very large.
"You humans think in such 3 dimensional terms"  Borg Queen.
Life has been keeping me busy.
Just a quick update on my approaches to playing lotto.
Essentially I hit a wall for a few years, was not able to achieve any progress in improving my odds.
I had two objectives.
1 Try to reduce the pool of numbers down from 45 to approx 20.
2 Try to ensure that that the resulting pool maintained the 6 winning numbers on a viable win cycle. So around every 6 weeks.
Both big asks and fails. Like I said I hit a wall, there seemed no way to achieve the consistency needed to make it financially viable.
And then I had an epiphany, not saying exactly what it was as it's still very early in the testing. But the results I was chasing have panned out well for a number of historical games analysis.
I now end up with a number pool of between 18 to 22 numbers. Within this pool I achieve 6 winning numbers in my 6/45 game on an approx. 6 week cycle.
I have also just today figured out a method of improving on this which I hope will either reduce my number pool or improve my winning hit rate.
All of what I am doing is driven from maths, nothing is any metaphysical airy fairy stuff.
A major discovery is that historically we have all applied statistics to number analysis. That's all well and good but as the name implies it's static. So we all apply static analysis to what I have discovered is a dynamic data set. We should be using dynamics! A whole new frontier in which the statistical equations and approaches morph and become dynamic in the analysis of what is essentially a dynamic field of historical data.
Taking this approach has allowed me to achieve my current results, and based on my initial findings of another element should allow even better outcomes.
It's all very large.
"You humans think in such 3 dimensional terms"  Borg Queen.
Re: Shout out
WOW !
Any estimate of how many "games" would need to be played and would it be applicable to any
Lottery game size anywhere in the world ?
Congratulations and well done to you on your perseverance!
Any estimate of how many "games" would need to be played and would it be applicable to any
Lottery game size anywhere in the world ?
Congratulations and well done to you on your perseverance!

 Casual
 Posts: 18
 Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2014 8:19 am
Re: Shout out
Hi Flash,
If I played between 6 to 12 games I should hit a win.
But, and there is always a but. This is a 6/45 game, I can narrow my selection field down to between 6/18 to 6/22.
The game only allows a max number play of 18 numbers, so if I have more I need to randomly reduce the numbers and subsequently the odds of having the winning 6 still.
On top of this and even if I could make them all 6/18 games it costs around $20k for an 18 number game.
Given 12 weeks at $20k = $240k making playing impossible as I don't have that sort of money.
Still, I've got some potential for further refining of my method to enhance the outcome. I would like to either reduce the total number pool or to improve on the winning combination time frame.
As for game size and location this seems to make little difference, I have modeled against a few and achieved similar results. However games with some significant history make much better data sets with more accurate predictions.
If I played between 6 to 12 games I should hit a win.
But, and there is always a but. This is a 6/45 game, I can narrow my selection field down to between 6/18 to 6/22.
The game only allows a max number play of 18 numbers, so if I have more I need to randomly reduce the numbers and subsequently the odds of having the winning 6 still.
On top of this and even if I could make them all 6/18 games it costs around $20k for an 18 number game.
Given 12 weeks at $20k = $240k making playing impossible as I don't have that sort of money.
Still, I've got some potential for further refining of my method to enhance the outcome. I would like to either reduce the total number pool or to improve on the winning combination time frame.
As for game size and location this seems to make little difference, I have modeled against a few and achieved similar results. However games with some significant history make much better data sets with more accurate predictions.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest