I have used this many times, never won huge..but I have hit numbers more frequently then before.
Check it out:
http://lotto649stats.com/
Check it out:
http://lotto649stats.com/
It sure is a good site if you know how to use itbee eh said:guaranteed bullshit...sorry
Even with random events - some events have a higher probability than others...that is true i m o, that's why if you have the time to sift through the stats you are better off using your own numbers. But this is all about entertainment, you do whatever you think works best for you. For me personally my on numbers almost alwaystersey said:If selection of numbers in a lottery are random, how can anything but a quick pick the way to go.
Those lottery balls don't have any reason or logic do they?
Good luck poonhunter. Had good results with this software as wellpoonhunter said:Wow that site picked numbers (not combos) for the last two draws, amazing i'm going to have to start studying this site and hopefully do a "Happy Dance"
heres what the help says:Fred Zed said:Good luck poonhunter. Had good results with this software as well
4/6 (Lottario) the last 2 draws ! 4/6 only pays $20-$30, but hey, that covers the cost of the tickets.
http://netatelier.com/rndLabs/default.aspx
Read this article, Lotto numbers are NOT totally random-hankpank said:heres what the help says:
There is no rational formula to help you win, all Lotto software claiming that is just charlatanism.
Also, there is no magic in choosing numbers based on your children dates of birth, your house address or the last digits of your phone number.
Numbers drawn on a Lotto game are totally random, past events are irrelevant to future events - this is demonstrated in every introductory class to Probabilities Theory.
Fred Zed said:Read this article, Lotto numbers are NOT totally random-
indeed when the sample size is large as in Keno
some weak patterns can be identified:
http://www.omninerd.com/articles/Pattern_Analysis_of_MegaMillions_Lottery_Numbers
I think the 649 odds are correct:~ 1/13,000,000hankpank said:I don't know man...its just randomness and chaos...you never know with these things...even if you say like that other site that there is a pattern over the past 5 years..how do you know over the next 5 years that this pattern does not show anymore, i.e. randomness over a longer period of time...also why does everyone keep saying that chances of winning are ~ 1/13,000,000? I thought its 49x48x47x46x45x44 = 1/10,068,347,520??
Well, the draws are mutually exclusive events and there is no connection between a current draw and one or more previous draws. Interestingly, one may notice that often one or two numbers from Super-7 draw on Friday appear in 6/49 draw on Saturday and similarly one or two number drawn on Wednesday in 6/49 draw are drawn on Friday in Super-7. This could not be interpreted as showing a relationship or having some predictive power.Fred Zed said:I think the 649 odds are correct:~ 1/13,000,000
What the article suggests is there might be some marginal advantage
to studying the stats, personally I found that to be true - meaning to say
sometimes that can help you recover your $10 or $20 bet or whatever, but if you are looking to win the JP that's a different story ofcourse.
I think perhaps 99.9 % of 649 bets don't get any money refunded.
About this there will never be any agreement. Some of us swear that it is possible to get one or more extra numbers correct by reviewing theKaam_Guru said:Well, the draws are mutually exclusive events and there is no connection between a current draw and one or more previous draws. Interestingly, one may notice that often one or two numbers from Super-7 draw on Friday appear in 6/49 draw on Saturday and similarly one or two number drawn on Wednesday in 6/49 draw are drawn on Friday in Super-7. This could not be interpreted as showing a relationship or having some predictive power.
As far as $10-$20 wins are concerned, whether one sees the past data or just plays some combinations of random numbers, one may win $10-$20, more so, if one keeps playing the same combinations again and again!
Every lottery is based in some form finite combinatorial or permutational selection. That finite set of numbers follows a pattern that can be described mathematically, logically, structurally, numerically, and quantumly; all of which are well known patterns of the Universe. Quantum Lottery Mechanics, a new field of Combinatorics, says that if you randomly sample from a known finite set of combinatorial or permutational items, you must have within that sample set a pattern or sub-pattern of combinations or permutations that are fractally similar to the whole set of finite combinations or permutations. This is closely related to the Combinatorial Farctalization I've posted before. Simply put, no matter how random something may appear to be, there will always be some kind of pattern in the Chaos. Order is a subset of Chaos. Anytime you create a subset of Chaos, you in essence create Order; it can not be avoided. There will some pattern even when you select seemingly at random from that Order until the Order is released back into Chaos. Keep in mind that Quantum Lottery Mechanics does not say precisely what the pattern is, it just accurately describes what it should be like.
Also..read this guy's story, gambling based on careful study of probability can pay off:http://www.peterwebb.co.uk/jbl.htmKaam_Guru said:As far as $10-$20 wins are concerned, whether one sees the past data or just plays some combinations of random numbers, one may win $10-$20, more so, if one keeps playing the same combinations again and again!
God bless you. Don't forget me humble guy when giving away money to friends and I hope to get a gift of at least $50K from you because the coming Super-7 draw is estimated at $22 Million.jimmyt said:I have had 5 numbers on 7 different occasions in the past 2 years.....I keep telling myself it is only a matter of time.
You miss my point. You are not predicting the specificKaam_Guru said:By definition, the random numbers are those that can’t be predicted and if they can be predicted then they are “not random”. If a predicted random number appears in the draw, then it is just a coincidence or the drawing procedure is biased.
I would admit that the paragraph quoted at the end is a nice and brief statement on the use of "Theory of Chaos" without using the jargon. Yet, what is said may be researchable in theory but its practical utility is nil from the point of view of predicting winning lottery combinations.
I agree that one may have some combinations (3/6 or 4/6) that may have relatively higher probability of being drawn. I misunderstood the point and commented on the basis of 6/6 result.Fred Zed said:You miss my point ............
.
Thanks. I am glad we are now on the same page. Regarding stastisticalKaam_Guru said:I agree that one may have some combinations (3/6 or 4/6) that may have relatively higher probability of being drawn. I misunderstood the point and commented on the basis of 6/6 result.
I would like to add that it is possible to develop scientific statistical models for predicting lottery outcomes on statistical grounds but the predicted outcome itself would be probabilistic and not deterministic.
It took them 10 years, they won once only and we don't know that how many times they played and how many combinations they played each time ... so the outcome of the model was very probabilistic with very low probability of realization of predicted result. The instance may be just a coincidence and does not establish the validity of the prediction model from the point of view of its utility for lottery players. Also, there are hundreds of people in the world who have won very very big jackpots as "once in life time event" without having any prediction models. So what is so big if a group of professors won a big jackpot once in the life time! And, we do not know how many groups of professors or otherwise statistical modelers have lost billions of dollars in the past (several centuries) and the process continues.Fred Zed said:Thanks. I am glad we are now on the same page. Regarding statistical models I think there was group of UK professors who won the UK National Lottery (the equivalent of our 649) using statistical models.
But apparently it took them 10 years of trying.