I think of a winning formula as a multiplication problem. If you take a comment made on another post:

"incorpate all the systems, gems,sums,V-tracs,Elimination,pairs,

lead and pointers, and you will be able to narrow it down."

You would have gems x sums x V-tracs x Elimination x pairs x leads and pointers =a win=1

So if V-tracs=0 then you lose

If V-tracs is only half right then your final equivalency is less than 1 and you lose

Consequently, each element must be 100% correct and you should be able to prove that element 100% correct jbefore you include it in your winning formula.

Since no one element is 100% correct, it is a matter of finding those elements which have the least amount of error so that you might have 1 win in X amount of games.

All comments are welcome.

Feb 24, 2006, 4:42 pm

Winning formula implies that when used the results will be the same as the drawing outcome while the outcomes of the drawings are one of thousands of possible outcomes picked randomly.

Instead of multiplication, think of it as a multiple regression equation.

gems*X +sums*Y +V-tracs*Z etc; =a win=1

Feb 24, 2006, 8:36 pm

Instead of multiplying, how about adding? Maybe your winner shows up in 3 or 4 of your 5 systems/filters.

Feb 25, 2006, 11:55 am

Hello,

Many systems could be considered "Winning" formulas as most of them can consistently beat the odds.The problem is these systems have not yet beaten the odds to the point where they would be profitable or pratical.

Current systems that are publicly available seem to elimiate too many possible comblinations therefore they eliminate the winner,or they generate so may possible combinations its is not profitable or pratical to play them all.

One system I have been testing is MDIEditorLottoWE.I have been tracking a powerball pool of 3 million numbers generated by it.It has gotten 6- 5 white ball hits and one jackpot hit.

So you can say that it has beaten the odds every time that a winner was in the number pool.

Playing 3 million numbers for a $200,000 dollar prize is certainly not profitable.

Playing 3 million numbers for a jackpot prize would be profitable ,but not pratical.How would one go about getting 3 million numbers into the powerball system in time for the next draw.Just Filling out the pick cards would take a very considerable amount of time.

I am sure that practical and profitable systems have existed,and they may be made again.However they will not work for long as I am absolutely sure the lottery is tracking winners and profits for indications of a possible system and will definately change the game so said systems will no longer work.

You can certainly reduce your odds of winning with most lottery systems,but currently luck is the biggest part of the formula for a pratical and profitable win.

Feb 25, 2006, 12:08 pm

Hello,

Many systems could be considered "Winning" formulas as most of them can consistently beat the odds.The problem is these systems have not yet beaten the odds to the point where they would be profitable or pratical.

Current systems that are publicly available seem to elimiate too many possible comblinations therefore they eliminate the winner,or they generate so may possible combinations its is not profitable or pratical to play them all.

One system I have been testing is MDIEditorLottoWE.I have been tracking a powerball pool of 3 million numbers generated by it.It has gotten 6- 5 white ball hits and one jackpot hit.

So you can say that it has beaten the odds every time that a winner was in the number pool.

Playing 3 million numbers for a $200,000 dollar prize is certainly not profitable.

Playing 3 million numbers for a jackpot prize would be profitable ,but not pratical.How would one go about getting 3 million numbers into the powerball system in time for the next draw.Just Filling out the pick cards would take a very considerable amount of time.

I am sure that practical and profitable systems have existed,and they may be made again.However they will not work for long as I am absolutely sure the lottery is tracking winners and profits for indications of a possible system and will definately change the game so said systems will no longer work.

You can certainly reduce your odds of winning with most lottery systems,but currently luck is the biggest part of the formula for a pratical and profitable win.

now, that is the best definition of "luck" that has come across these pages in a long time...!

Feb 27, 2006, 7:49 pm

I like your thought processes JKING. I've also thought along these same lines in testing and trying different strategies and systems. And yes it is very much a multiplication of the components of the whole system.

As an example: Parts of a system for pick3 I am working(still testing....takes a lot of time) on involves this thought.

1. There is a 55% chance that one number will repeat in the next draw. 657 combinations.

2. Add 1-6 filters from a software package of choice that will give you a minimum 66% for each filter to be correct. (In Pick332 I have a process that produces this result.)

3. Multiply strategies together to get result resulting probability to hit.

0.55*0.66*0.66*0.66*0.66=0.09487 = ~10% probability to hit.

So, depending on the strength of our filtering and the payout we receive for a win, we would have a winning system.

Eg. If payout = 900-1 (take betslips.com payout for pick3)

Repeat digit: 657 combinations left.

Filter 2: 224 combinations left

Filter 3: 88 combinations left

Filter 4: 35 combinations left

100 draws at 10% = 10 hits

100 draws * 35 combinations on average = $3500

wins = 900*10 = $9000

profit = 9000-3500 = $5500

So, essentially, yes I believe the answer lies within the parts(proven, measureable components), making the whole a winning system. Any alternative that I also have thought of on occassion has been to gather many systems that provide better than random expectation results together, allow each to produce a number of straight combinations and choose only those combinations that are the same among systems. Thats' just one thought though, there are many variations you can think of on this theme and quite possibly could be an answer.

Feb 28, 2006, 1:49 pm

Oops, combinations to start sould have been more like 300, not 657....I was thinking of another strategy's combinations.

Mar 23, 2006, 12:35 pm

How about my formula?

https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/129944

That reminds me of the idea to play all 146,107,962 combinations some one mentioned before. It has been proposed a 4000 terminal hours needed for that purpose. So for a 1000 member pool, each one would spend 4 hours and buy 146,108 tickets.

Say the previous JP is 200m.

If no one share the JP, then each member makes $150,000, double the money.

If JP is shared with another, then each member break it even.

Now with internet, finding 1000 crazy people with $150,000 each to throw on lottery become possible. Just loan the money with your house and buy another house after you win.

My idea is: if there is such theoratic method that can go such extreme to beat the system, then there must also have been something in between.

Mar 23, 2006, 2:34 pm

How about my formula?

https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/129944

That reminds me of the idea to play all 146,107,962 combinations some one mentioned before. It has been proposed a 4000 terminal hours needed for that purpose. So for a 1000 member pool, each one would spend 4 hours and buy 146,108 tickets.

Say the previous JP is 200m.

If no one share the JP, then each member makes $150,000, double the money.

If JP is shared with another, then each member break it even.

Now with internet, finding 1000 crazy people with $150,000 each to throw on lottery become possible. Just loan the money with your house and buy another house after you win.

My idea is: if there is such theoratic method that can go such extreme to beat the system, then there must also have been something in between.

If there was a formula or system that could come up with the winning combinations even some times then it could be simulated on paper or in your computer. There is no need to ask "how about my formula or system" or "what about that formula or system" when you have a computer. If you really want to know if a formula or system works then simply test it.

I doubt if anyone taking the time to develop and test a formula or system that worked even some times would post it for the benefits of others. Conclusion: If it posted, it doesn't work.

Mar 24, 2006, 2:14 pm

Here is the problem.......the lotto drawings are actually designed to dance around all numbers waged by the betting public. It will then settle on the numbers with the least amount of payout. That is why it is a game of luck. You have got to be lucky form when they are compelled to drawn 6 numbers that has actually been waged by someone. Haven't you noticed that most winners come after the Jackpot crosses $100 million. The higher the total....the bigger the freenzy....the more money the States make. This weekend will change that......a winner from Maryland will take it all. Or maybe he is dreaming

Mar 25, 2006, 1:23 am

For me, a winning "formula" would have to take advantage of a “loophole” in the laws of probability. Not that one actually exists, but if one were ever to be found, you could bet that this is what the formula would revolve around. Perhaps the loophole would be a probability within a probability of sorts, maybe 10 layers deep, maybe more.

If you could take several combinations and give each one of them an individual 50% chance to be drawn within a measured (but short span) of trials, then a marvelous formula would really exist.

Suppose you choose four different combos and each one had a 50% chance of being drawn within *X* amount of consecutive games. If you played all four combos as a group, then there would be exactly 2^4 = 16 possible outcomes for that group of four combinations.

W = Win, L = Lose

WWWW

WWWL

WWLW

WLWW

LWWW

WWLL

WLWL

LWWL

WLLW

LWLW

LLWW

WLLL

LWLL

LLWL

LLLW

LLLL

Of all sixteen possible outcomes, only one (LLLL) represents a total loss. The other15 outcomes ensure a 15 in 16 or 93.75% chance of winning AT LEAST once collectively. Now imagine playing 5, 6 or even 10 combinations with 50% chances….the probability for success starts to climb towards 99%.

Actually, this scenario is already very real, but the amount of trials to attain the 50% is far to great in comparison with the typical Pick 3 or Pick 4 payouts. The everything_median reveals how the games are binary, that is one or zero, on or off, Win or Lose…..just need a way to increase the numbers or shorten up the trials.

TopEnd of thread (1 page)

© 2021 Speednet Group LLC Lottery Post is a registered trademark of Speednet Group. |

Welcome Guest

Your last visit: Sun, Oct 17, 2021, 8:10 pm