On Thursday, April 5, 2012 4:52:09 AM UTC-4, nigel wrote:
> Trivia fans might remember the spoof positionally based 'system' I > posted here some time ago.
> The winning numbers in Saturday's main Canada 6/49 draw were: > 33,35,36,39,48,49
> For last night's draw that would have produced the combo:
> 23***,25***,26***,29,38,39
> Last night's draw results and Harry's spoof reminded me to check!
> Evil Nigel
Positional Limits, Lotto Decades, etc.
That’s no longer a lotto strategy based on positional limits or positional ranges. Rather, it is an even more efficient lottery strategy based on LOTTO DECADES. Yes, it hits more rarely, if other filters are enabled in conjunction with the decades (e.g. FREQUENCY GROUPS).
“Total combinations for HIT situations:
20, 5, 25, 75, 5, 30
Average number of combinations: 26
The strategy hit 6 times in 1000 drawings (less than three years time). You can see that the lotto strategy required just 5 combinations when it was successful on 2 occasions. That particular lotto 5/39 strategy generated 75 lotto combinations to play on one occasion. But I can tell you that on several occasions the strategy does NOT generate one single lotto combination! The average number of combinations to play is 26.
Let's say you want to play each and every drawing in the lotto 5 game conducted by the lottery commission. What I present here is valid everywhere, including the great state or nation of yours.
Playing in all 1000 lotto drawings makes no sense (look at the skips between wins), but let's suppose we do so. The value of the COW (cost-of-winning) would reach $26,000 for $1 per ticket. The jackpot prize is listed at $100,000. The jackpot reaches over $250,000 on occasions, but also $50,000. Let's stick with the listed lotto-5 jackpot of $100,000. Winning 6 times amounts to over half a million dollars for a risk (cost) of just over a quarter of a thousand hundred dollars. The return ratio reaches over 23. It's extremely rare to see such a return ratio in traditional investing.”
One can only hope that all debaters of the 2000’s are alive and kicking … O tempora, O mores! Where have all them Kotkoducks, Kokostirks, Pulickers, Boozdoogahns, Karaklonchahs, Krokodicks, Sharkies … gone?
Parpaluck wrote:
> On Thursday, April 5, 2012 4:52:09 AM UTC-4, nigel wrote:
>>Trivia fans might remember the spoof positionally based 'system' I >>posted here some time ago.
>>The winning numbers in Saturday's main Canada 6/49 draw were: >>33,35,36,39,48,49
>>For last night's draw that would have produced the combo:
>>23***,25***,26***,29,38,39
>>Last night's draw results and Harry's spoof reminded me to check!
>>Evil Nigel
> Positional Limits, Lotto Decades, etc.
> That’s no longer a lotto strategy based on positional limits or positional ranges. Rather, it is an even more efficient lottery strategy based on LOTTO DECADES. Yes, it hits more rarely, if other filters are enabled in conjunction with the decades (e.g. FREQUENCY GROUPS).
> “Total combinations for HIT situations:
> 20, 5, 25, 75, 5, 30
> Average number of combinations: 26
> The strategy hit 6 times in 1000 drawings (less than three years time). You can see that the lotto strategy required just 5 combinations when it was successful on 2 occasions. That particular lotto 5/39 strategy generated 75 lotto combinations to play on one occasion. But I can tell you that on several occasions the strategy does NOT generate one single lotto combination! The average number of combinations to play is 26.
> Let's say you want to play each and every drawing in the lotto 5 game conducted by the lottery commission. What I present here is valid everywhere, including the great state or nation of yours.
> Playing in all 1000 lotto drawings makes no sense (look at the skips between wins), but let's suppose we do so. The value of the COW (cost-of-winning) would reach $26,000 for $1 per ticket. The jackpot prize is listed at $100,000. The jackpot reaches over $250,000 on occasions, but also $50,000. Let's stick with the listed lotto-5 jackpot of $100,000. Winning 6 times amounts to over half a million dollars for a risk (cost) of just over a quarter of a thousand hundred dollars. The return ratio reaches over 23. It's extremely rare to see such a return ratio in traditional investing.”
> One can only hope that all debaters of the 2000’s are alive and kicking … O tempora, O mores! Where have all them Kotkoducks, Kokostirks, Pulickers, Boozdoogahns, Karaklonchahs, Krokodicks, Sharkies … gone?
On Friday, April 6, 2012 1:20:44 PM UTC-4, nigel wrote:
> Spoof system prediction for Saturday's Ontario 6/49:
> 16,21,23,29,36,37
> or should that be:
> 26,31,33,39,46,47?
> Evil Nigel
> Parpaluck wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 5, 2012 4:52:09 AM UTC-4, nigel wrote:
> >>Trivia fans might remember the spoof positionally based 'system' I > >>posted here some time ago.
> >>The winning numbers in Saturday's main Canada 6/49 draw were: > >>33,35,36,39,48,49
> >>For last night's draw that would have produced the combo:
> >>23***,25***,26***,29,38,39
> >>Last night's draw results and Harry's spoof reminded me to check!
> >>Evil Nigel
> > Positional Limits, Lotto Decades, etc.
> > That’s no longer a lotto strategy based on positional limits or positional ranges. Rather, it is an even more efficient lottery strategy based on LOTTO DECADES. Yes, it hits more rarely, if other filters are enabled in conjunction with the decades (e.g. FREQUENCY GROUPS).
> > “Total combinations for HIT situations:
> > 20, 5, 25, 75, 5, 30
> > Average number of combinations: 26
> > The strategy hit 6 times in 1000 drawings (less than three years time). You can see that the lotto strategy required just 5 combinations when it was successful on 2 occasions. That particular lotto 5/39 strategy generated 75 lotto combinations to play on one occasion. But I can tell you that on several occasions the strategy does NOT generate one single lotto combination! The average number of combinations to play is 26.
> > Let's say you want to play each and every drawing in the lotto 5 game conducted by the lottery commission. What I present here is valid everywhere, including the great state or nation of yours.
> > Playing in all 1000 lotto drawings makes no sense (look at the skips between wins), but let's suppose we do so. The value of the COW (cost-of-winning) would reach $26,000 for $1 per ticket. The jackpot prize is listed at $100,000. The jackpot reaches over $250,000 on occasions, but also $50,000. Let's stick with the listed lotto-5 jackpot of $100,000. Winning 6 times amounts to over half a million dollars for a risk (cost) of just over a quarter of a thousand hundred dollars. The return ratio reaches over 23. It's extremely rare to see such a return ratio in traditional investing.”
> > One can only hope that all debaters of the 2000’s are alive and kicking … O tempora, O mores! Where have all them Kotkoducks, Kokostirks, Pulickers, Boozdoogahns, Karaklonchahs, Krokodicks, Sharkies … gone?
> > Ion Saliu
Ni:
So, what’s gonna be? Which 6-number combo are you gonna play? Your answer:
“Exactly!”
That is, you combine the two sets into 12 lotto numbers. Then, to be frugal and efficient, you might want to apply a 12-number lotto wheel. But one and only one such wheel qualifies. It requires, however, grouping the numbers:
I analyzed also wheeling horse numbers. It’s worthwhile considering ONLY in popular horse races, where the payouts are much higher than on grandpa’s days. There have been today three such horse races in the US. They are dubbed ‘warm-up derbies’ leading to the Kentucky Derby.
Applying wheels to the 3 popular horse races led to some $300 in profit.
Playing all possible straight trifectas led to:
$2000+ aggregate profit in 2 races;
$400+ loss in one race (if that race had won and the other two lost, the profit would have been even higher!) Wheeling is NOT the way to go!
The Kentucky Derby is on May 5. They guarantee 20 horses in the race. No wonder they have always refused to give me all the history results (130+ races) as numbers (the post positions of the top 4 finishers)!
One can only hope that all debaters of the 2000’s are alive and kicking … O tempora, O mores! Where have all them Kotkoducks, Kokostirks, Pulickers, Boozdoogahns, gEETZERS, Tilley’s … gone?
