Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Developer, a prize idiot post at LotteryPost
554 views
Skip to first unread message
Colin Fairbrother
Jul 23, 2012, 1:58:47 AM7/23/12
to
Without a doubt the home for Lotto idiots is http//LotteryPost.com catering for people who consult booklets for dream numbers etc.
A recent post by one who goes under the pseudonym Developer caught my attention where he maintains different integers used in one lne produce different 3-combination intersects with all the 6-combination possibilities in a 6/49 Lotto game see http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/248193
For numerical order line 01 12 13 38 39 49, 1 is always in position 1 and 12 and 13 will be next to each other as in XXX000 (7,140), X0XX00 (6,300), X00XX00 (1,620) and X000XX (120) totalling 15,180. "Developer" couldn't see beyond 7,140 but still lauded about how "brilliant" he is. Now who does that remind me of?
The amazing thing is with all their so thought expertise those that responded couldn't see the error!
Colin Fairbrother
http://www.colinfairbrother.com/ProbabilityTheoryForLotto.aspx
A recent post by one who goes under the pseudonym Developer caught my attention where he maintains different integers used in one lne produce different 3-combination intersects with all the 6-combination possibilities in a 6/49 Lotto game see http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/248193
For numerical order line 01 12 13 38 39 49, 1 is always in position 1 and 12 and 13 will be next to each other as in XXX000 (7,140), X0XX00 (6,300), X00XX00 (1,620) and X000XX (120) totalling 15,180. "Developer" couldn't see beyond 7,140 but still lauded about how "brilliant" he is. Now who does that remind me of?
The amazing thing is with all their so thought expertise those that responded couldn't see the error!
Colin Fairbrother
http://www.colinfairbrother.com/ProbabilityTheoryForLotto.aspx
nigel
Jul 23, 2012, 6:48:33 AM7/23/12
to
largest aerospace manufacturers, I don't do games, not my thing.
I do like maths and that's why I do this.
"
Hmmmmm.
Evil Nigel
Colin Fairbrother
Jul 25, 2012, 4:44:13 PM7/25/12
to
After little hesitation but still mindful of all the facts "Developer" wins the 2012 Lotto Idiot award.
Read the thread here http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/248193
Let's consider the reasons for him winning this award.
He knows about the number of combinations of 6 integers in a 6/49 Lotto game (13,983,816) and the number of combinations of 3 integers in one Pick 6 line (20) and multiplying the two together came up with 279,676,320 combinations of three integers including duplicates. Presumably with his "I do like maths and that's why I do this." he knows about the 18,424 distinct combinations of three integers for a 6/49 Lotto game which when divided into 279,676,320 gives 15,180, the occurrence for each of the 18,424 combinations of 3 integers.
Given all that, for a lexicographic enumeration of all the combinations of 6 integers he states for line 01 12 13 38 39 40, "01 12 13 Appears 7,140 times in position XXXOOO = 47.04% of a possible 15,180 positions available". As I previously pointed out 01 12 13 also appears 6,300 times for X0XX00, 1,620 times for X00XX0 and 120 times for X000XX giving the expected total of 15,180.
"Developer" is from the UK and has been a member of LotteryPost since December 17, 2004 so he is no newbie. Very worrying for intending air flight passengers is his bragging, "In my day job I code electrical test software for some of the world's largest aerospace manufacturers, ..."
According to "Developer", "It's a massive achievement for me creating an algorithm that can do that, and so fast. I have been working on it for many months. Thought I would share with a community that could appreciate it, my wife just goes, "That's nice dear""
Purely for the intellectual exercise as the premise for "Developers Pick 6 Lotto System" is entirely wrong I modified a bit of old code and came up with the 20 lines and 20 columns output for any of the Pick 6 lines after getting up and before breakfast. In VBA it takes about 10 seconds to run and this can be improved on.
The "Gurus" at LotteryPost that participated in the thread couldn't see the blatant contradiction and woeful error and some actually confirmed his output. This undoubtedly is a sad outcome from webmaster Todd Northrup's practice of kicking out of his forum those that are too questioning and rational for his taste.
Let's give the last word to Developer with, "I have now tweaked the algorithm to predict the other missing numbers based on the 3 ball probability as explained above, comparing these predictions with past draw data I can see the hit rate is the best I have ever seen to date period...... The challenge still remains to pick the first 3 correct balls in their final 3 positions in the draw." and may all his insane predictions come true!
Colin Fairbrother
http://ColinFairbrother.com
Read the thread here http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/248193
Let's consider the reasons for him winning this award.
He knows about the number of combinations of 6 integers in a 6/49 Lotto game (13,983,816) and the number of combinations of 3 integers in one Pick 6 line (20) and multiplying the two together came up with 279,676,320 combinations of three integers including duplicates. Presumably with his "I do like maths and that's why I do this." he knows about the 18,424 distinct combinations of three integers for a 6/49 Lotto game which when divided into 279,676,320 gives 15,180, the occurrence for each of the 18,424 combinations of 3 integers.
Given all that, for a lexicographic enumeration of all the combinations of 6 integers he states for line 01 12 13 38 39 40, "01 12 13 Appears 7,140 times in position XXXOOO = 47.04% of a possible 15,180 positions available". As I previously pointed out 01 12 13 also appears 6,300 times for X0XX00, 1,620 times for X00XX0 and 120 times for X000XX giving the expected total of 15,180.
"Developer" is from the UK and has been a member of LotteryPost since December 17, 2004 so he is no newbie. Very worrying for intending air flight passengers is his bragging, "In my day job I code electrical test software for some of the world's largest aerospace manufacturers, ..."
According to "Developer", "It's a massive achievement for me creating an algorithm that can do that, and so fast. I have been working on it for many months. Thought I would share with a community that could appreciate it, my wife just goes, "That's nice dear""
Purely for the intellectual exercise as the premise for "Developers Pick 6 Lotto System" is entirely wrong I modified a bit of old code and came up with the 20 lines and 20 columns output for any of the Pick 6 lines after getting up and before breakfast. In VBA it takes about 10 seconds to run and this can be improved on.
The "Gurus" at LotteryPost that participated in the thread couldn't see the blatant contradiction and woeful error and some actually confirmed his output. This undoubtedly is a sad outcome from webmaster Todd Northrup's practice of kicking out of his forum those that are too questioning and rational for his taste.
Let's give the last word to Developer with, "I have now tweaked the algorithm to predict the other missing numbers based on the 3 ball probability as explained above, comparing these predictions with past draw data I can see the hit rate is the best I have ever seen to date period...... The challenge still remains to pick the first 3 correct balls in their final 3 positions in the draw." and may all his insane predictions come true!
Colin Fairbrother
http://ColinFairbrother.com
Nick UK
Jul 25, 2012, 7:36:04 PM7/25/12
to
Colin Fairbrother wrote
Assuming Lottery Post subscriber 'Developer' doesn't subscribe to RGL, how
will he know he's won the much heralded, much sought-after.. Colin
Fairbrother 'Lotto Idiot' prize for 2012 ??
Presumably CF will cross-post his 'award' to Lottery Post? If not, then it
would be a complete WOFT posting it here!
Ps: Niggle, I was to fkn lazy to type the four words so I made do with WOFT
and to hell with any reader who is puzzled as to what the letters mean! I
know you'll understand and appreciate my reasoning and I think I know that
you know what WOFT means?
Eh Niggle?
Colin Fairbrother
Jul 25, 2012, 8:27:20 PM7/25/12
to
The target is not the handful of regulars in this group but the www, where a few factors go into whether the crawler robots recognize it as having some substance.
If you are using the new Google Groups format you will notice it now gives the number of views but for some older posts only recent visits. As I have pointed out before the majority of visits to RGL are from links in browsers and therefore to older posts.
Actually, I am interested to see how long it takes before a subscriber to LotteryPost who also visits here from time to time wins kudos by posting a correction (he is not allowed to mention my name) and whether Todd Northrup is so embarrassed that he deletes the whole thread.
The rubbish posters in this group are deluding themselves when they think that recent traffic is looking at their drivellings.
Colin Fairbrother
http://ColinFairbrother.com
If you are using the new Google Groups format you will notice it now gives the number of views but for some older posts only recent visits. As I have pointed out before the majority of visits to RGL are from links in browsers and therefore to older posts.
Actually, I am interested to see how long it takes before a subscriber to LotteryPost who also visits here from time to time wins kudos by posting a correction (he is not allowed to mention my name) and whether Todd Northrup is so embarrassed that he deletes the whole thread.
The rubbish posters in this group are deluding themselves when they think that recent traffic is looking at their drivellings.
Colin Fairbrother
http://ColinFairbrother.com
Nick UK
Jul 26, 2012, 8:11:58 AM7/26/12
to
The answer to every lottery player's prayers..
His Eminence Colin Fairbrother, posting yet *again* to RGL, deluded only
himself as he drivelled..
< snip the usual dross >
> The rubbish posters in this group are deluding themselves
> when they think that recent traffic is looking at their drivellings.
Colin Fairbrother
Hmmmmm: if you subscribe here, then by default, you are including yourself
as one of the.. 'rubbish posters in this group' which (in your case) is most
appropriate!
Or perhaps you're kidding yourself that you don't actually post here?
nigel
Jul 27, 2012, 5:37:18 AM7/27/12
to
Colin Fairbrother wrote:
>
> The rubbish posters in this group are deluding themselves when they
> think that recent traffic is looking at their drivellings.
So you think that when Google Groups reports that a recent thread has
>
> The rubbish posters in this group are deluding themselves when they
> think that recent traffic is looking at their drivellings.
had 59 views, most of those views were of another, older thread by
people who had saved a link?
A recent experiment in another newsgroup suggests that news services
aren't yet dead, and a majority of readers access newsgroup postings
that way.
Evil Nigel
Colin Fairbrother
Jul 27, 2012, 7:57:54 AM7/27/12
to
Internet Explorer search shortly after I posted: -
https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/rec.gambling.lottery/5rNZiikjgaI
The robot crawlers are not interested in rubbish posters especially a puny, pusillanimous, lying prick flogging a Lotto syndicate con-artist scheme see -
http://lottoposter.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=640&FID=46&PR=3
The fact is the opportunity was there for someone to simply post a relevant equation 49c6 x 6c3 / 49c3 = 15,180. No bullshit hmmm's necessary.
What a weird, virtual world you both live in.
Colin Fairbrother
https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/rec.gambling.lottery/5rNZiikjgaI
The robot crawlers are not interested in rubbish posters especially a puny, pusillanimous, lying prick flogging a Lotto syndicate con-artist scheme see -
http://lottoposter.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=640&FID=46&PR=3
The fact is the opportunity was there for someone to simply post a relevant equation 49c6 x 6c3 / 49c3 = 15,180. No bullshit hmmm's necessary.
What a weird, virtual world you both live in.
Colin Fairbrother
Jack Ricci
Jul 27, 2012, 8:53:51 AM7/27/12
to
"Colin Fairbrother" wrote in message
news:71c4fe28-92e9-41c0...@googlegroups.com...
Colin,
After noticing some of the expressions and big words you use in your
posts, I feel an eerie sense of deja-vu.
I think you are searching for all of John Griffins previous posts, and
taking your most flavourable plagiarisms from his previously posted
material...because I'm almost certain that the Aussie dictionary doesn't
list some of the grammar which you occasionally use as derogatory
gutter-plunging.
The word " pusillanimous " comes to mind. If I " GOOGLE " the word
"pusillanimous", are not a few of John Griffin's old posts to be displayed?
John had an amusing literary style which projected his innermost thoughts.
Are you copy-catting? What exactly is your day-job, anyways?
Jack
nigel
Jul 27, 2012, 9:50:58 AM7/27/12
to
Evil Nigel
Nick UK
Jul 27, 2012, 1:38:33 PM7/27/12
to
RGL's prolific rubbish poster Colin Fairbrother, drivelled..
>
Toowit Nigel (best pronounced 'niggle') responded appropriately by
Hmmmming..
Hmmmmmmm.
Evil Nigel
...................................................................
Hmmmmmmm
Nick UK
>
> The fact is the opportunity was there for someone to simply post a
> relevant equation 49c6 x 6c3 / 49c3 = 15,180. <yawn>
> The fact is the opportunity was there for someone to simply post a
>
> No bullshit hmmm's necessary.
>
> Colin Fairbrother
> No bullshit hmmm's necessary.
>
>
Toowit Nigel (best pronounced 'niggle') responded appropriately by
Hmmmming..
Hmmmmmmm.
Evil Nigel
...................................................................
Hmmmmmmm
Nick UK
Colin Fairbrother
Jul 27, 2012, 9:49:25 PM7/27/12
to
A silly old fart just farted again and after immediately taking a huge breath of the malodorous, savoury delight looked around for admiring glances and praising phrases and bewildered found none.
What a sad case of literary malnutrition when a participant in a newsgroup, of late mainly frequented by morons and social cretins and on which he bases his vocabulary awareness. These abject rejects of humanity such as Nick the thick and Evil Nigel the Walter Mitty bewiller may be compared to toilet loiterers making lewd remarks to approaching users such as, "In a hurry?" or pointing to the groin area, "Couldn't make it?".
A search of http://LottoPoster.com will find me using the word pusillanimous as early as 2004 long before I knew of the existence of John Griffin. My first introduction to the word was as a high school boy in a prescribed English literature book on the recollections of a Pacific Islands field officer in Britain's colonial past.
Currently, on the low table alongside my lounge chair is a copy of Ulysses by James Joyce which I'm attempting to read again in a lesser time than the first read many years ago, which took much longer in small doses than what a 650 page novel normally does.
In passing I should point out that "Developer" (see http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/248193) is in a class of people in this area of interest, Lotto analysis, that places him aeons ahead of the rubbish posters in this newsgroup - you see he did something - produced a table and got it all wrong while still indicating he had some skills. To win my Lotto Idiocy Award there has to be evidence of some Lotto forensic skills - so such a glorious accolade is beyond the wildest wet dreams of the frivolous, spew regurgitators aka rubbish posters - of this newsgroup.
Obviously "Developers" involevment with the crackpots of http://LotteryPost.com has led him down the occultist path to a pit of putrescent ridiculousness. But for him there is hope - for the rubbish posters in this newsgroup there is none.
Colin Fairbrother
http://ColinFairbrother.com
What a sad case of literary malnutrition when a participant in a newsgroup, of late mainly frequented by morons and social cretins and on which he bases his vocabulary awareness. These abject rejects of humanity such as Nick the thick and Evil Nigel the Walter Mitty bewiller may be compared to toilet loiterers making lewd remarks to approaching users such as, "In a hurry?" or pointing to the groin area, "Couldn't make it?".
A search of http://LottoPoster.com will find me using the word pusillanimous as early as 2004 long before I knew of the existence of John Griffin. My first introduction to the word was as a high school boy in a prescribed English literature book on the recollections of a Pacific Islands field officer in Britain's colonial past.
Currently, on the low table alongside my lounge chair is a copy of Ulysses by James Joyce which I'm attempting to read again in a lesser time than the first read many years ago, which took much longer in small doses than what a 650 page novel normally does.
In passing I should point out that "Developer" (see http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/248193) is in a class of people in this area of interest, Lotto analysis, that places him aeons ahead of the rubbish posters in this newsgroup - you see he did something - produced a table and got it all wrong while still indicating he had some skills. To win my Lotto Idiocy Award there has to be evidence of some Lotto forensic skills - so such a glorious accolade is beyond the wildest wet dreams of the frivolous, spew regurgitators aka rubbish posters - of this newsgroup.
Obviously "Developers" involevment with the crackpots of http://LotteryPost.com has led him down the occultist path to a pit of putrescent ridiculousness. But for him there is hope - for the rubbish posters in this newsgroup there is none.
Colin Fairbrother
http://ColinFairbrother.com
nigel
Jul 28, 2012, 4:30:13 AM7/28/12
to
Colin Fairbrother wrote:
> A silly old fart just farted again and after immediately taking a
> huge breath of the malodorous, savoury delight looked around for
> admiring glances and praising phrases and bewildered found none.
Never mind old chap, better out than in, eh?
> A silly old fart just farted again and after immediately taking a
> huge breath of the malodorous, savoury delight looked around for
> admiring glances and praising phrases and bewildered found none.
> A search of http://LottoPoster.com will find me using the word
> pusillanimous as early as 2004 long before I knew of the existence of
> John Griffin. My first introduction to the word was as a high school
> boy in a prescribed English literature book on the recollections of a
> Pacific Islands field officer in Britain's colonial past.
No Search Results Found
Your search failed to find any results
Click here to ammend your search"
Or not, as the case may be. BTW, perhaps you'd care to ammend (sic) your
spelling of amend.
Yes, I subsequently found 'pusillanimous' when I changed the default
criteria to 'all dates', but it's clear you don't know what it means.
Parpaluck could never be described as pusillanimous.
Hmmmmmmm.
Evil Nigel
nigel
Jul 28, 2012, 6:30:32 AM7/28/12
to
Colin Fairbrother wrote:
> These abject rejects of
> humanity such as Nick the thick and Evil Nigel the Walter Mitty
> bewiller may be compared to toilet loiterers making lewd remarks to
> approaching users such as, "In a hurry?" or pointing to the groin
> area, "Couldn't make it?".
In one of those serendipitous ironical coincidences which permeate
> These abject rejects of
> humanity such as Nick the thick and Evil Nigel the Walter Mitty
> bewiller may be compared to toilet loiterers making lewd remarks to
> approaching users such as, "In a hurry?" or pointing to the groin
> area, "Couldn't make it?".
life's rich tapestry, no guesses where I was when the postie rang my
doorbell with the delivery, requiring a signature, which I'd been
waiting for.
Fortunately no unhygienic accidents ensued :)
Evil Nigel
Nick UK
Jul 28, 2012, 6:56:05 AM7/28/12
to
Whilst taking a break from content searching, scraping, copying & pasting
others' work, the document-thief and dishonest plagiarist from down under,
Colin Fairbrother drivelled..
<snip the usual dross>
> Obviously "Developers" involevment with the crackpots of
> http://LotteryPost.com
> has led him down the occultist path to a pit of putrescent ridiculousness.
> But for him there is hope - for the rubbish posters in this newsgroup
> there is none.
>
> Colin Fairbrother
involevment!! Huh?.. JAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACK!!
Hey CF!!
Your dull, mind-numbing, tedious, wearisome, uninteresting and uninspiring
postings to RGL, is certainly unwelcome!
Ps: and do try a bit harder with your spelling before considering further
*involevment* with this group of 'rubbish posters' and/or with the
'crackpots' of Lottery Post - idiot!
Jack Ricci
Jul 28, 2012, 9:24:43 AM7/28/12
to
***
A silly old fart just farted again and after immediately taking a huge
breath of the malodorous, savoury delight looked around for admiring glances
and praising phrases and bewildered found none.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For your aforementioned observation, which survey results did you assume the
statistics from?
Jack
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
***
Welcome to our club!
Jack
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
***
These abject rejects of humanity such as Nick the thick and Evil Nigel the
Walter Mitty bewiller may be compared to toilet loiterers making lewd
remarks to approaching users such as, "In a hurry?" or pointing to the groin
area, "Couldn't make it?".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How dare you forget to add Colin Fairbrother to the fold...He's gonna be
pissed about the utter rejection.
Jack
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
***
A search of http://LottoPoster.com will find me using the word pusillanimous
as early as 2004 long before I knew of the existence of John Griffin. My
first introduction to the word was as a high school boy in a prescribed
English literature book on the recollections of a Pacific Islands field
officer in Britain's colonial past.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We should all be impressed, no doubt. Was there a news release at the time?
How could we have missed this?
Jack
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
***
Currently, on the low table alongside my lounge chair is a copy of Ulysses
by James Joyce which I'm attempting to read again in a lesser time than the
first read many years ago, which took much longer in small doses than what a
650 page novel normally does.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My favourite sitting area has several translations of large print versions
of the Holy Scriptures, which I have now complimented with a CD player/sound
system, and the corresponding CD discs of several Old and New Testament
translations of The Holy Scriptures for my easy-listening pleasure.
It only takes about 60 hours to listen to an entire translation version of
the entire Holy Scriptures, as inspired by GOD ALMIGHTY himself. The words
which GOD uses and the stories of humanity told are much more interesting
than The Tall Tales of Colin Fairbrother, or any of his newsgroup escapades.
Although you could technically hear the entire Holy Scriptures on CD in a
week's time, it takes a lifetime to understand them.
There seems to be a parallel here.
Jack
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
***
AMEN...Let us bow our heads now in 15 minutes of silence, please...Thank
You.
Jack
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Colin Fairbrother" wrote in message
news:402f3fe3-42e9-498d...@googlegroups.com...
A silly old fart just farted again and after immediately taking a huge
breath of the malodorous, savoury delight looked around for admiring glances
and praising phrases and bewildered found none.
For your aforementioned observation, which survey results did you assume the
statistics from?
Jack
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
***
What a sad case of literary malnutrition when a participant in a newsgroup,
of late mainly frequented by morons and social cretins
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
of late mainly frequented by morons and social cretins
Welcome to our club!
Jack
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
***
These abject rejects of humanity such as Nick the thick and Evil Nigel the
Walter Mitty bewiller may be compared to toilet loiterers making lewd
remarks to approaching users such as, "In a hurry?" or pointing to the groin
area, "Couldn't make it?".
How dare you forget to add Colin Fairbrother to the fold...He's gonna be
pissed about the utter rejection.
Jack
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
***
A search of http://LottoPoster.com will find me using the word pusillanimous
as early as 2004 long before I knew of the existence of John Griffin. My
first introduction to the word was as a high school boy in a prescribed
English literature book on the recollections of a Pacific Islands field
officer in Britain's colonial past.
We should all be impressed, no doubt. Was there a news release at the time?
How could we have missed this?
Jack
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
***
Currently, on the low table alongside my lounge chair is a copy of Ulysses
by James Joyce which I'm attempting to read again in a lesser time than the
first read many years ago, which took much longer in small doses than what a
650 page novel normally does.
My favourite sitting area has several translations of large print versions
of the Holy Scriptures, which I have now complimented with a CD player/sound
system, and the corresponding CD discs of several Old and New Testament
translations of The Holy Scriptures for my easy-listening pleasure.
It only takes about 60 hours to listen to an entire translation version of
the entire Holy Scriptures, as inspired by GOD ALMIGHTY himself. The words
which GOD uses and the stories of humanity told are much more interesting
than The Tall Tales of Colin Fairbrother, or any of his newsgroup escapades.
Although you could technically hear the entire Holy Scriptures on CD in a
week's time, it takes a lifetime to understand them.
There seems to be a parallel here.
Jack
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
***
In passing I should point out that "Developer" (see
http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/248193) is in a class of people in this
area of interest, Lotto analysis, that places him aeons ahead of the rubbish
posters in this newsgroup - you see he did something - produced a table and
got it all wrong while still indicating he had some skills. To win my Lotto
Idiocy Award there has to be evidence of some Lotto forensic skills - so
such a glorious accolade is beyond the wildest wet dreams of the frivolous,
spew regurgitators aka rubbish posters - of this newsgroup.
Obviously "Developers" involevment with the crackpots of
http://LotteryPost.com has led him down the occultist path to a pit of
putrescent ridiculousness. But for him there is hope - for the rubbish
posters in this newsgroup there is none.
Colin Fairbrother
http://ColinFairbrother.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/248193) is in a class of people in this
area of interest, Lotto analysis, that places him aeons ahead of the rubbish
posters in this newsgroup - you see he did something - produced a table and
got it all wrong while still indicating he had some skills. To win my Lotto
Idiocy Award there has to be evidence of some Lotto forensic skills - so
such a glorious accolade is beyond the wildest wet dreams of the frivolous,
spew regurgitators aka rubbish posters - of this newsgroup.
Obviously "Developers" involevment with the crackpots of
http://LotteryPost.com has led him down the occultist path to a pit of
putrescent ridiculousness. But for him there is hope - for the rubbish
posters in this newsgroup there is none.
Colin Fairbrother
http://ColinFairbrother.com
AMEN...Let us bow our heads now in 15 minutes of silence, please...Thank
You.
Jack
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Ricci
Jul 28, 2012, 9:30:22 AM7/28/12
to
***
"Nick UK" wrote in message news:jv0gi5$s56$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
involevment!! Huh?.. JAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACK!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it's a Greek idiom, Nick...
Jack
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Nick UK" wrote in message news:jv0gi5$s56$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
involevment!! Huh?.. JAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACK!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it's a Greek idiom, Nick...
Jack
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nick UK
Jul 28, 2012, 12:06:36 PM7/28/12
to
Nick UK sought Jack Ricci's assistance..
>
> involevment!! Huh?.. JAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACK!!
>
> Jack Ricci kindly responded...
>
> I think it's a Greek idiom, Nick.
Posted here by a prize Aussie idiot!
> I think it's a Greek idiom, Nick.
Colin Fairbrother
Jul 28, 2012, 7:47:04 PM7/28/12
to
For those interested I have posted the results for line 01 12 13 38 39 49 at
http://www.lottoposter.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=725&PN=1
For anyone else that bothers to go through the exercise they can post the results for Developer's other chosen line 02 04 06 29 39 49 or any other line.
Colin Fairbrother
http://www.lottoposter.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=725&PN=1
For anyone else that bothers to go through the exercise they can post the results for Developer's other chosen line 02 04 06 29 39 49 or any other line.
Colin Fairbrother
nigel
Jul 29, 2012, 5:35:44 AM7/29/12
to
Evil Nigel
Nick UK
Jul 29, 2012, 6:46:33 AM7/29/12
to
Colin Fairbrother drivelled..
I will add that to the waiting list for the reserve list for my bucket list.
Evil Nigel
..........................................................
I ran out of toilet tissue so I went to..
http://www.lottoposter.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=725&PN=1
..and I printed Colin's post on an A4 sheet.
Bit rough on the rear-end but it did the job okay.
Anything in an emergency!
You know, that's the first time CF has ever been of any use to anyone
in this forum.
Gives a new meaning to the phrase.. 'shit-poster'!
> >
> > For those interested I have posted the results for line 01 12 13 38
> > 39 49 at
> >
> > http://www.lottoposter.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=725&PN=1
> >
> > For anyone else that bothers to go through the exercise they can post
> > the results for Developer's other chosen line 02 04 06 29 39 49 or
> > any other line.
> >
> > Colin Fairbrother
>>
Nigel (best pronounced 'niggle') niggled CF a bit more by responding..
> > For those interested I have posted the results for line 01 12 13 38
> > 39 49 at
> >
> > http://www.lottoposter.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=725&PN=1
> >
> > For anyone else that bothers to go through the exercise they can post
> > the results for Developer's other chosen line 02 04 06 29 39 49 or
> > any other line.
> >
> > Colin Fairbrother
>>
I will add that to the waiting list for the reserve list for my bucket list.
Evil Nigel
I ran out of toilet tissue so I went to..
http://www.lottoposter.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=725&PN=1
..and I printed Colin's post on an A4 sheet.
Bit rough on the rear-end but it did the job okay.
Anything in an emergency!
You know, that's the first time CF has ever been of any use to anyone
in this forum.
Gives a new meaning to the phrase.. 'shit-poster'!
nigel
Jul 29, 2012, 6:52:04 AM7/29/12
to
Nick UK wrote:
>
> You know, that's the first time CF has ever been of any use to anyone
> in this forum.
>
To be fair, brother, that's not quite true. He has posted one or two
>
> You know, that's the first time CF has ever been of any use to anyone
> in this forum.
>
things which have been useful to me - the URL to random.org, for example.
Evil Nigel
Colin Fairbrother
Jul 29, 2012, 9:59:37 PM7/29/12
to
Regarding traffic to rec.gambling.lottery with the improved information from Google groups as of today and over the last 4 days there have been 3,980 web views with 152 of those to my messages over the past 7 days and 77 of those to this thread.
While the three rubbish posters other than myself to this thread, all of whom are weirdo Lotto number predictionists, may amuse each other when dialoguing with each other they are deservedly ignored by the rest of the world. I certainly have no desire to engage with their puerile nonsense but may occasionally comment on them.
At best in a public newsgroup like this one, they should be regarded as inevitable background noise and unfortunately their propensity to denigrate without substance and usually with abuse has chased otherwise intelligent contributors away. If you look at early contributions in this group you will find posts by the likes of Professor Iliya Bluskov - now, while I am no admirer of his work in regard to Lotto I believe he still deserves respect for his qualifications and any dialogue should be at a rational and courteous level.
I could just as easily confined my comments on "Developers" post at http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/248193 to http://LottoPoster.com or http://ColinFairbrother.com but chose to initially post here after some months absence and a long spate of utterly insane rantings. (The table results may be viewed at http://www.lottoposter.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=725&PN=1)
I invite others to post something sensible here and to ignore the turd droppings from the rubbish posters. Don't engage with them - that's what they live for - delusional, attention seeking.
Colin Fairbrother
While the three rubbish posters other than myself to this thread, all of whom are weirdo Lotto number predictionists, may amuse each other when dialoguing with each other they are deservedly ignored by the rest of the world. I certainly have no desire to engage with their puerile nonsense but may occasionally comment on them.
At best in a public newsgroup like this one, they should be regarded as inevitable background noise and unfortunately their propensity to denigrate without substance and usually with abuse has chased otherwise intelligent contributors away. If you look at early contributions in this group you will find posts by the likes of Professor Iliya Bluskov - now, while I am no admirer of his work in regard to Lotto I believe he still deserves respect for his qualifications and any dialogue should be at a rational and courteous level.
I could just as easily confined my comments on "Developers" post at http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/248193 to http://LottoPoster.com or http://ColinFairbrother.com but chose to initially post here after some months absence and a long spate of utterly insane rantings. (The table results may be viewed at http://www.lottoposter.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=725&PN=1)
I invite others to post something sensible here and to ignore the turd droppings from the rubbish posters. Don't engage with them - that's what they live for - delusional, attention seeking.
Colin Fairbrother
nigel
Jul 30, 2012, 6:19:33 AM7/30/12
to
Colin Fairbrother wrote:
> rubbish
> weirdo
> puerile nonsense
> denigrate without substance abuse
> courteous
> utterly insane rantings
> turd droppings rubbish posters
> delusional attention seeking
Hmmmmmm, spot the odd one out.
Evil Nigel
> rubbish
> weirdo
> puerile nonsense
> denigrate without substance abuse
> courteous
> utterly insane rantings
> turd droppings rubbish posters
> delusional attention seeking
Hmmmmmm, spot the odd one out.
Evil Nigel
Jack Ricci
Jul 30, 2012, 8:26:21 AM7/30/12
to
***
"Colin Fairbrother" wrote in message
news:37325983-c900-46ce...@googlegroups.com...
If you look at early contributions in this group you will find posts by the
likes of Professor Iliya Bluskov - now, while I am no admirer of his work in
regard to Lotto I believe he still deserves respect for his qualifications
and any dialogue should be at a rational and courteous level.
Colin Fairbrother
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
..." All " dialogue should be at a rational and courteous level...no matter
what the individual's credentials are. All newsgroup participants qualify to
learn from relevant postings, without fear of ridicule or bullying. You seem
to forget that the participants here are not mischievous teenagers...You
really should quit acting like one.
Self-appointed, self-elevated, self proclaiming professionals of none whom
would try to position SELF as the epitome of any category, topic or
newsgroup could appear to be the most notorious characters for onlookers to
not ignore, because their posts are merely used as entertainment, leaving
readers with a true sense of sarcasm and amusement.
This is the remaining reason which I personally have to come to RGL and read
all of Colin's posts! I want to learn your insult tactics and skills with
which to keep drowning opponents in the gutter and rise above the dead ones.
You do this in a comical way, Colin.
You know Colin, there are polite ways of getting a point across without
yourself exhibiting all of the shortcomings and accusations which you
constantly heap on others. Your sentiments are merely a mirror reflection of
your own faults and failures.
Is it really worth your effort to try to pose yourself as top lotto guru,
Colin? Can there be such a thing? What are the rewards?
...Is there really such thing as a lottery professional? How many has Colin
won?
Jack
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Colin Fairbrother" wrote in message
If you look at early contributions in this group you will find posts by the
likes of Professor Iliya Bluskov - now, while I am no admirer of his work in
regard to Lotto I believe he still deserves respect for his qualifications
and any dialogue should be at a rational and courteous level.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
..." All " dialogue should be at a rational and courteous level...no matter
what the individual's credentials are. All newsgroup participants qualify to
learn from relevant postings, without fear of ridicule or bullying. You seem
to forget that the participants here are not mischievous teenagers...You
really should quit acting like one.
Self-appointed, self-elevated, self proclaiming professionals of none whom
would try to position SELF as the epitome of any category, topic or
newsgroup could appear to be the most notorious characters for onlookers to
not ignore, because their posts are merely used as entertainment, leaving
readers with a true sense of sarcasm and amusement.
This is the remaining reason which I personally have to come to RGL and read
all of Colin's posts! I want to learn your insult tactics and skills with
which to keep drowning opponents in the gutter and rise above the dead ones.
You do this in a comical way, Colin.
You know Colin, there are polite ways of getting a point across without
yourself exhibiting all of the shortcomings and accusations which you
constantly heap on others. Your sentiments are merely a mirror reflection of
your own faults and failures.
Is it really worth your effort to try to pose yourself as top lotto guru,
Colin? Can there be such a thing? What are the rewards?
...Is there really such thing as a lottery professional? How many has Colin
won?
Jack
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colin Fairbrother
Jul 30, 2012, 9:32:30 PM7/30/12
to
Mentioning Iliya Bluskov in my previous post reminded me of a post I came across of his from 1996 where he originally estimated a C(49,6,3,6) could be done in about 54 lines and then updated that to 87 lines after applying a formula from the Journal of Combinatorial Design, 1996 - see
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topicsearchin/rec.gambling.lottery/group:rec.gambling.lottery$20AND$20authorname:%22Iliya$20Bluskov%22/rec.gambling.lottery/49CLIxVCpqg
Applying simple common sense the best C(39,6,3,6)= 88.
All combinations of 6 integers for a Pool of 39 (ie 39c6) is 3,262,623 which represents roughly only 23% of the 13,983,816 possibilities. Can the balance of 10,721,193 possibilities, 76%, be covered in practically no lines. I doubt it. The current best cover is C(49,6,3,6)=163 but this is not the best 163 lines to play from a Yield or Percentage Return viewpoint - see
http://www.colinfairbrother.com/UsingLesserPoolCoversInLotto.aspx
Even professors can be very wide of the mark sometimes.
Colin Fairbrother
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topicsearchin/rec.gambling.lottery/group:rec.gambling.lottery$20AND$20authorname:%22Iliya$20Bluskov%22/rec.gambling.lottery/49CLIxVCpqg
Applying simple common sense the best C(39,6,3,6)= 88.
All combinations of 6 integers for a Pool of 39 (ie 39c6) is 3,262,623 which represents roughly only 23% of the 13,983,816 possibilities. Can the balance of 10,721,193 possibilities, 76%, be covered in practically no lines. I doubt it. The current best cover is C(49,6,3,6)=163 but this is not the best 163 lines to play from a Yield or Percentage Return viewpoint - see
http://www.colinfairbrother.com/UsingLesserPoolCoversInLotto.aspx
Even professors can be very wide of the mark sometimes.
Colin Fairbrother
nigel
Jul 31, 2012, 6:44:15 AM7/31/12
to
abusing and insulting suspects in order to provoke them into revealing
too much.
Translated to rgl, abuse and insults could be deemed as evidence that
the insulter considers the insultee to be more intelligent and have
discovered more about the lottery than insulter, and is an unsubtle
attempt to provoke the insultee into useful revelations.
Evil Nigel
Nick UK
Jul 31, 2012, 7:19:25 AM7/31/12
to
Nigel (best pronounced 'niggle') niggled a bit more when revealing..
People who watch police procedurals will be familiar with the tactic of
abusing and insulting suspects in order to provoke them into revealing
too much.
Translated to rgl, abuse and insults could be deemed as evidence that
the insulter considers the insultee to be more intelligent and have
discovered more about the lottery than insulter, and is an unsubtle
attempt to provoke the insultee into useful revelations.
Huh?
JAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACK!!
Jack Ricci
Jul 31, 2012, 10:22:09 AM7/31/12
to
***
"Nick UK" wrote in message news:jv8f15$t5d$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
***
Huh?
JAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACK!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nick,
Nigel is simply trying to point out that Colin appears to be a power-hungry
terrorist who uses hurtful tactics in a vain effort to squeeze the real
intelligence about lottery from those who are in the know. ( I used to use
these tactics to provoke controversy when RGL got boring, remember? ) Butt
then, Colin claims the intelligence, findings and conclusions are all his
own, in order rise above the heavens and be the self-appointed Lotto
Emperor.
Jack
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Nick UK" wrote in message news:jv8f15$t5d$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
Huh?
JAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACK!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nick,
Nigel is simply trying to point out that Colin appears to be a power-hungry
terrorist who uses hurtful tactics in a vain effort to squeeze the real
intelligence about lottery from those who are in the know. ( I used to use
these tactics to provoke controversy when RGL got boring, remember? ) Butt
then, Colin claims the intelligence, findings and conclusions are all his
own, in order rise above the heavens and be the self-appointed Lotto
Emperor.
Jack
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Ricci
Jul 31, 2012, 10:28:21 AM7/31/12
to
Congratulations, Colin.
I actually did find this post as one of your more pleasant and interesting
reads.
Jack
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Colin Fairbrother" wrote in message
nigel
Jul 31, 2012, 11:18:33 AM7/31/12
to
Don't confuse 'pleasant and interesting' with correct.
If I had �163 to spend on one lotto draw, who would choose Colin's wheel
ahead of the guarantee of a �10 return?
Evil Nigel
If I had �163 to spend on one lotto draw, who would choose Colin's wheel
ahead of the guarantee of a �10 return?
Evil Nigel
Nick UK
Jul 31, 2012, 4:02:43 PM7/31/12
to
> Colin Fairbrother wrote..
<give him no credit - snip the dross 100%>
Jack Ricci responded..
I've tried the same approach in the past Jacko and top marks to you too, for
trying to coax C**t Face into the human race!
However, I'm afraid you are wasting your time Jack and your 'softly-softly'
response will have no effect whatsoever, simply because the guy is 100%
selfish, 100% self-centred and totally beyond fkn redemption!
When is the asshole going to learn that his boring fkn numerology crap isn't
wanted here! When is he going to realise that the vast majority of lotto
players worldwide, cannot afford to play anywhere near 163 lines or be
influenced by his 23% of 14m coms covered or 76% of 14m coms remaining
uncovered! All of which is *totally* irrelevant to the average player and
who fkn cares anyway?
Some examples of his recent shit, with my comments embedded below..
> 'people who consult booklets for dream numbers etc'..
What the fk has it got to do with CF and why should he care?
And why does he continually condemn every single person who
crosses his path online? Probably does the same in his daily life too.
He goes on..
> For numerical order line 01 12 13 38 39 49, 1 is always in position 1 and
> 12 and 13 will be next to each other as in XXX000 (7,140), X0XX00 (6,300)
> X00XX00 (1,620) and X000XX (120) totalling 15,180. "Developer" couldn't
> see beyond 7,140 but still lauded about how "brilliant" he is.
WTF?? !!
Now let's all respond to CF's 'expertise!..
Hooooooooray for CF! Feel better now asshole?
And get a load of this dross..
> 'Developer' knows about the number of combinations of 6 integers in a 6/49
> Lotto game (13,983,816) and the number of combinations of 3 integers in
> one Pick 6 line (20) and multiplying the two together came up with
> 279,676,320 combinations of three integers including duplicates.
> Presumably with his "I do like maths and that's why I do this." he knows
> about the 18,424 distinct combinations of three integers for a 6/49 Lotto
> game which when divided into 279,676,320 gives 15,180, the occurrence for
> each of the 18,424 combinations of 3 integers ie 49c6 x 6c3 / 49c3 =
> 15,180.
Huh? 15,180 combinations!! Yeah, I play 15,150 coms every draw! So
does Niggle, Jack and every subscriber, lurker here! What a fkn donut!
What is the point of all that dross? Apart from CF, who takes any fkn
notice? Who considers all that crap important? Again.. who fkn cares?
When is this arrogant CF git going to realise that he is subscribing to the
wrong forums. He should be in mathematical newsgroups, not lottery groups,
where the average lotto player buys his two or three lines every draw!
Apart from CF's own self-esteem.. what is the point of all those
mathematical equations? What is the point of all that dross?
Perhaps CF should now advise every lotto player..
Don't consult booklets or any other source for your dream numbers! If you
want to win a Jackpot, consult chart like this and tons of other
mind-numbing dross I produce, for just $5 a year..
Position abc abd abe abf acd ace acf ade adf
aef bcd bce bcf bde bdf bef cde cdf cef def
XXX000 7140 165 7140 0 165 120 0 120 0 0
165 120 0 120 0 0 120 0 0 0
XX0X00 0 1375 0 0 1320 1125 0 0 0 0 1320
1125 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
XX00X0 0 3300 0 0 3036 3000 0 0 0 0 3036
3000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
XX000X 0 2300 0 7140 2024 2300 6545 0 120 84
2024 2300 6545 0 120 84 0 120 84 84
X0XX00 6300 550 6300 0 605 495 0 1620 0 0 0
0 0 1125 0 0 1080 0 0 0
X0X0X0 0 2750 0 0 2904 2750 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
X0X00X 0 3000 0 6300 3036 3300 6545 0 1620
1332 0 0 0 0 1125 936 0 1080 900 0
X00XX0 1620 495 1620 0 605 550 0 6300 0 0 0
0 0 3000 0 0 2760 0 0 0
X00X0X 0 1125 0 1620 1320 1375 1925 0 6300
5994 0 0 0 0 3000 2925 0 2760 2700 0
X000XX 120 120 120 120 165 165 165 7140 7140
7770 0 0 0 2300 2300 2600 2024 2024 2300 0
0XXX00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 605 495 0
495 0 0 540 0 0 0
0XX0X0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2904 3300
0 0 0 396 0 540 0 1332
0XX00X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3036 3300
6545 0 495 396 0 540 432 1332
0X0XX0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2750 0 0 2880 0 0 0
0X0X0X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2750 2574 0 2880 2700 0
0X00XX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3300 3300 3575 3312 3312 3600 0
00XXX0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 605 550 0
550 0 0 660 0 0 0
00XX0X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1320 1375
1925 0 550 495 0 660 594 5994
00X0XX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1375 1375 1430 1584 1584 1650 0
000XXX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 165 165
165 165 165 165 220 220 220 7770
Totals 15180 15180 15180 15180 15180 15180 15180
15180 15180 15180 15180 15180 15180 15180 15180
15180 15180 15180 15180 15180
WTF??
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrggggggggghhhhhhhhh!!!!!
<give him no credit - snip the dross 100%>
Jack Ricci responded..
>
> Congratulations, Colin.
>
> I actually did find this post as one of your more pleasant and interesting
> reads.
>
> Nigel (best pronounced 'niggle') snapped..
> Congratulations, Colin.
>
> I actually did find this post as one of your more pleasant and interesting
> reads.
>
> Don't confuse 'pleasant and interesting' with correct.
>
> If I had �163 to spend on one lotto draw, who would choose Colin's wheel
> ahead of the guarantee of a �10 return?
>
> ----------------------------------------
>
> If I had �163 to spend on one lotto draw, who would choose Colin's wheel
> ahead of the guarantee of a �10 return?
>
I've tried the same approach in the past Jacko and top marks to you too, for
trying to coax C**t Face into the human race!
However, I'm afraid you are wasting your time Jack and your 'softly-softly'
response will have no effect whatsoever, simply because the guy is 100%
selfish, 100% self-centred and totally beyond fkn redemption!
When is the asshole going to learn that his boring fkn numerology crap isn't
wanted here! When is he going to realise that the vast majority of lotto
players worldwide, cannot afford to play anywhere near 163 lines or be
influenced by his 23% of 14m coms covered or 76% of 14m coms remaining
uncovered! All of which is *totally* irrelevant to the average player and
who fkn cares anyway?
Some examples of his recent shit, with my comments embedded below..
> 'people who consult booklets for dream numbers etc'..
What the fk has it got to do with CF and why should he care?
And why does he continually condemn every single person who
crosses his path online? Probably does the same in his daily life too.
He goes on..
> For numerical order line 01 12 13 38 39 49, 1 is always in position 1 and
> 12 and 13 will be next to each other as in XXX000 (7,140), X0XX00 (6,300)
> X00XX00 (1,620) and X000XX (120) totalling 15,180. "Developer" couldn't
> see beyond 7,140 but still lauded about how "brilliant" he is.
WTF?? !!
Now let's all respond to CF's 'expertise!..
Hooooooooray for CF! Feel better now asshole?
And get a load of this dross..
> 'Developer' knows about the number of combinations of 6 integers in a 6/49
> Lotto game (13,983,816) and the number of combinations of 3 integers in
> one Pick 6 line (20) and multiplying the two together came up with
> 279,676,320 combinations of three integers including duplicates.
> Presumably with his "I do like maths and that's why I do this." he knows
> about the 18,424 distinct combinations of three integers for a 6/49 Lotto
> game which when divided into 279,676,320 gives 15,180, the occurrence for
> each of the 18,424 combinations of 3 integers ie 49c6 x 6c3 / 49c3 =
> 15,180.
Huh? 15,180 combinations!! Yeah, I play 15,150 coms every draw! So
does Niggle, Jack and every subscriber, lurker here! What a fkn donut!
What is the point of all that dross? Apart from CF, who takes any fkn
notice? Who considers all that crap important? Again.. who fkn cares?
When is this arrogant CF git going to realise that he is subscribing to the
wrong forums. He should be in mathematical newsgroups, not lottery groups,
where the average lotto player buys his two or three lines every draw!
Apart from CF's own self-esteem.. what is the point of all those
mathematical equations? What is the point of all that dross?
Perhaps CF should now advise every lotto player..
Don't consult booklets or any other source for your dream numbers! If you
want to win a Jackpot, consult chart like this and tons of other
mind-numbing dross I produce, for just $5 a year..
Position abc abd abe abf acd ace acf ade adf
aef bcd bce bcf bde bdf bef cde cdf cef def
XXX000 7140 165 7140 0 165 120 0 120 0 0
165 120 0 120 0 0 120 0 0 0
XX0X00 0 1375 0 0 1320 1125 0 0 0 0 1320
1125 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
XX00X0 0 3300 0 0 3036 3000 0 0 0 0 3036
3000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
XX000X 0 2300 0 7140 2024 2300 6545 0 120 84
2024 2300 6545 0 120 84 0 120 84 84
X0XX00 6300 550 6300 0 605 495 0 1620 0 0 0
0 0 1125 0 0 1080 0 0 0
X0X0X0 0 2750 0 0 2904 2750 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
X0X00X 0 3000 0 6300 3036 3300 6545 0 1620
1332 0 0 0 0 1125 936 0 1080 900 0
X00XX0 1620 495 1620 0 605 550 0 6300 0 0 0
0 0 3000 0 0 2760 0 0 0
X00X0X 0 1125 0 1620 1320 1375 1925 0 6300
5994 0 0 0 0 3000 2925 0 2760 2700 0
X000XX 120 120 120 120 165 165 165 7140 7140
7770 0 0 0 2300 2300 2600 2024 2024 2300 0
0XXX00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 605 495 0
495 0 0 540 0 0 0
0XX0X0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2904 3300
0 0 0 396 0 540 0 1332
0XX00X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3036 3300
6545 0 495 396 0 540 432 1332
0X0XX0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2750 0 0 2880 0 0 0
0X0X0X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2750 2574 0 2880 2700 0
0X00XX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3300 3300 3575 3312 3312 3600 0
00XXX0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 605 550 0
550 0 0 660 0 0 0
00XX0X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1320 1375
1925 0 550 495 0 660 594 5994
00X0XX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1375 1375 1430 1584 1584 1650 0
000XXX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 165 165
165 165 165 165 220 220 220 7770
Totals 15180 15180 15180 15180 15180 15180 15180
15180 15180 15180 15180 15180 15180 15180 15180
15180 15180 15180 15180 15180
WTF??
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrggggggggghhhhhhhhh!!!!!
Colin Fairbrother
Aug 1, 2012, 12:50:50 AM8/1/12
to
The claim by Professor Iliya Bluskov that a C(49,6,3,6) can approximate about 87 lines is really farcical - see
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topicsearchin/rec.gambling.lottery/group:rec.gambling.lottery$20AND$20authorname:%22Iliya$20Bluskov%22/rec.gambling.lottery/49CLIxVCpqg
as most of the Covers exceeding a Pool of 18 are made by merging the maximum packed 1540 CombThrees Steiner C(22,6,3,3)=77 lines Cover with some other Cover, as he well knows. Using only the 77 lines we have a 3if6 partial coverage of the 49c6 of 56%. The next best play adds an extra coverage of 229,824 CombSixes which decreases exponentially and for an extra 10 lines a Coverage of around 71% only is achieved and anyone that has experience in building Covers knows the last 5% can take a lot more than 10 lines.
This is rather weird thinking coming from a Professor that specializes in this area of mathematics and writes books for Lotto players advocating the use of Covers with a lesser Pool than the actual Lotto game played, which actually decreases their chances of winning a sub-prize in the reasonable short term, say 1000 plays. See -
http://www.colinfairbrother.com/UsingLesserPoolCoversInLotto.aspx
There is some con-artistry involved when the guarantee for the partial Pool is promoted, especially because it does not apply to the full Pool Lotto game played.
The real issue is that he is pandering to Lotto occultists including numerologists that delude themselves into thinking some balls or integers are more likely than others in the next draw and practically all mathematicians dismiss such notions as utterly baseless.
Colin Fairbrother
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topicsearchin/rec.gambling.lottery/group:rec.gambling.lottery$20AND$20authorname:%22Iliya$20Bluskov%22/rec.gambling.lottery/49CLIxVCpqg
as most of the Covers exceeding a Pool of 18 are made by merging the maximum packed 1540 CombThrees Steiner C(22,6,3,3)=77 lines Cover with some other Cover, as he well knows. Using only the 77 lines we have a 3if6 partial coverage of the 49c6 of 56%. The next best play adds an extra coverage of 229,824 CombSixes which decreases exponentially and for an extra 10 lines a Coverage of around 71% only is achieved and anyone that has experience in building Covers knows the last 5% can take a lot more than 10 lines.
This is rather weird thinking coming from a Professor that specializes in this area of mathematics and writes books for Lotto players advocating the use of Covers with a lesser Pool than the actual Lotto game played, which actually decreases their chances of winning a sub-prize in the reasonable short term, say 1000 plays. See -
http://www.colinfairbrother.com/UsingLesserPoolCoversInLotto.aspx
There is some con-artistry involved when the guarantee for the partial Pool is promoted, especially because it does not apply to the full Pool Lotto game played.
The real issue is that he is pandering to Lotto occultists including numerologists that delude themselves into thinking some balls or integers are more likely than others in the next draw and practically all mathematicians dismiss such notions as utterly baseless.
Colin Fairbrother
John E
Aug 1, 2012, 9:51:23 AM8/1/12
to
It's all "shank's mare" ye woe begotten wankers!
Put 20,000 white balls in a barrel; then put 6 black balls in, as well.
Now, pluck out the 6 black one's, ye math wizards...
Put 20,000 white balls in a barrel; then put 6 black balls in, as well.
Now, pluck out the 6 black one's, ye math wizards...
nigel
Aug 1, 2012, 11:09:20 AM8/1/12
to
Evil Nigel
Nick UK
Aug 1, 2012, 12:10:22 PM8/1/12
to
'John E' wrote..
>
> It's all "shank's mare" ye woe begotten wankers!
> Put 20,000 white balls in a barrel; then put 6 black balls in, as well.
>
> Now, pluck out the 6 black one's, ye math wizards...
>
.........................................................
> It's all "shank's mare" ye woe begotten wankers!
> Put 20,000 white balls in a barrel; then put 6 black balls in, as well.
>
> Now, pluck out the 6 black one's, ye math wizards...
>
Yet another 'prize idiot'!
> ye woe begotten..!!
Huh? Sounds like the idiot hails from the 16th Century!
Now why-the-fk would anyone want to stick 20,000 balls in a barrel?
Someone should stick jester John in a barrel..
minus his balls - of course!
Jack Ricci
Aug 1, 2012, 1:08:51 PM8/1/12
to
***
"John E" wrote in message
news:28336-50...@storefull-3112.bay.webtv.net...
It's all "shank's mare" ye woe begotten wankers!
Put 20,000 white balls in a barrel; then put 6 black balls in, as well.
Now, pluck out the 6 black one's, ye math wizards...
Our Canadian 6/49 Lottery makes it much easier...They only use 49 balls in
total...43 white...and 6 black.
Jack
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John E
Aug 1, 2012, 3:34:12 PM8/1/12
to
Good'un Nigel ! (-:
John E
Aug 1, 2012, 3:48:49 PM8/1/12
to
Nick; Merely illustrating the futility of all the "systems" which abound
on this site.
In the U.S. the Powerball is played in 17 States and (don't ask me why)
the Virgin Islands..
Quantify how many tickets are bought, by how mamy people for how many
weeks!
Then group the math/probability wizards in a room with p/c's and
software.
The resultant, one, winner amongst all is
usually, an unemployed dishwasher from West Overshoe Tennessee.
So much for the laws of predictability.
on this site.
In the U.S. the Powerball is played in 17 States and (don't ask me why)
the Virgin Islands..
Quantify how many tickets are bought, by how mamy people for how many
weeks!
Then group the math/probability wizards in a room with p/c's and
software.
The resultant, one, winner amongst all is
usually, an unemployed dishwasher from West Overshoe Tennessee.
So much for the laws of predictability.
John E
Aug 1, 2012, 3:51:10 PM8/1/12
to
Jack; FFS that's simple.
You Canucks must all be millionaires!
Eh?
You Canucks must all be millionaires!
Eh?
Colin Fairbrother
Aug 1, 2012, 7:46:14 PM8/1/12
to
A simple histogram of the minimum line Cover or Wheel with a
guaranteed CombThree prize for covering all the possible CombSixes for
various Pool sizes shows that an 87 line Cover for a Pick 6, Pool 49
Lotto game would be impossible - from 163 lines to 162 - maybe; 161
highly unlikely.
See - https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topicsearchin/rec.gambling.lottery/...
Pool Cover 3if6 Lines
7 *
8 *
9 *
10 **
11 **
12 **
13 **
14 ****
15 ****
16 *****
17 ******
18 *******
19 *********
20 **********
21 *************
22 ***************
23 *****************
24 ********************
25 **********************
26 *************************
27 ***************************
28 *******************************
29 ***********************************
30 ***************************************
31 *********************************************
32 *************************************************
33 *******************************************************
34 ***********************************************************
35
*****************************************************************
36
**********************************************************************
37
****************************************************************************
38
***********************************************************************************
39
****************************************************************************************
40
**********************************************************************************************
41
******************************************************************************************************
42
*************************************************************************************************************
43
********************************************************************************************************************
44
***************************************************************************************************************************
45
***********************************************************************************************************************************
46
******************************************************************************************************************************************
47
*************************************************************************************************************************************************
48
*********************************************************************************************************************************************************
49
*********************************************************************************************************************************************************************
Colin Fairbrother
http://ColinFairbrother.com
guaranteed CombThree prize for covering all the possible CombSixes for
various Pool sizes shows that an 87 line Cover for a Pick 6, Pool 49
Lotto game would be impossible - from 163 lines to 162 - maybe; 161
highly unlikely.
See - https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topicsearchin/rec.gambling.lottery/...
Pool Cover 3if6 Lines
7 *
8 *
9 *
10 **
11 **
12 **
13 **
14 ****
15 ****
16 *****
17 ******
18 *******
19 *********
20 **********
21 *************
22 ***************
23 *****************
24 ********************
25 **********************
26 *************************
27 ***************************
28 *******************************
29 ***********************************
30 ***************************************
31 *********************************************
32 *************************************************
33 *******************************************************
34 ***********************************************************
35
*****************************************************************
36
**********************************************************************
37
****************************************************************************
38
***********************************************************************************
39
****************************************************************************************
40
**********************************************************************************************
41
******************************************************************************************************
42
*************************************************************************************************************
43
********************************************************************************************************************
44
***************************************************************************************************************************
45
***********************************************************************************************************************************
46
******************************************************************************************************************************************
47
*************************************************************************************************************************************************
48
*********************************************************************************************************************************************************
49
*********************************************************************************************************************************************************************
Colin Fairbrother
http://ColinFairbrother.com
Colin Fairbrother
Aug 6, 2012, 8:27:53 PM8/6/12
to
The implausibility of the contention by Professor Iliya Bluskov that a
Cover can be made at around 87 lines for a Pick 6, Pool 49 Lotto game
such that each of the 13,983,816 combinations of 6 integers will be
matched by at least 1 combination of 3 integers in the set can be
shown without reference to other Covers for lesser Pools as in my
previous post.
For the original contention see -
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topicsearchin/rec.gambling.lottery/group:rec.gambling.lottery$20AND$20authorname:%22Iliya$20Bluskov%22/rec.gambling.lottery/49CLIxVCpqg
For a 6/49 Lotto game there are 49c3 = 18,424 combinations of 3 balls
or integers. Each line played has 6c3 = 20 combinations of 3 integers.
Dividing 18424 by 20 gives 921.2 or 922 lines theoretically as the
minimum for all the 18,424 CombThrees and as we only need to cover a
minimum of 1 CombThree divide by 6 to give 153.53 or 154, which is
unobtainable for the following reason.
The maximum number of lines with 20 CombThrees per line without
repeating a CombThree is 496, after that we drop to 19 then 18 and so
on until the last 1084th line containing only 11 distinct CombThrees.
Dividing 1084 by 6 gives us a ballpark figure of 181 lines.
Even though the figure of around 87 is arrived at by applying an
equation from a different author and source the onus is still there on
anyone using such an equation to test its feasibility, which is shown
to be fundamentally flawed.
Colin Fairbrother
http://ColinFairbrother.com
Cover can be made at around 87 lines for a Pick 6, Pool 49 Lotto game
such that each of the 13,983,816 combinations of 6 integers will be
matched by at least 1 combination of 3 integers in the set can be
shown without reference to other Covers for lesser Pools as in my
previous post.
For the original contention see -
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topicsearchin/rec.gambling.lottery/group:rec.gambling.lottery$20AND$20authorname:%22Iliya$20Bluskov%22/rec.gambling.lottery/49CLIxVCpqg
For a 6/49 Lotto game there are 49c3 = 18,424 combinations of 3 balls
or integers. Each line played has 6c3 = 20 combinations of 3 integers.
Dividing 18424 by 20 gives 921.2 or 922 lines theoretically as the
minimum for all the 18,424 CombThrees and as we only need to cover a
minimum of 1 CombThree divide by 6 to give 153.53 or 154, which is
unobtainable for the following reason.
The maximum number of lines with 20 CombThrees per line without
repeating a CombThree is 496, after that we drop to 19 then 18 and so
on until the last 1084th line containing only 11 distinct CombThrees.
Dividing 1084 by 6 gives us a ballpark figure of 181 lines.
Even though the figure of around 87 is arrived at by applying an
equation from a different author and source the onus is still there on
anyone using such an equation to test its feasibility, which is shown
to be fundamentally flawed.
Colin Fairbrother
http://ColinFairbrother.com
Colin Fairbrother
Sep 16, 2012, 12:12:13 AM9/16/12
to
Another way of pouring scorn on the contention by Professor Iliya
Bluskov that a coverage of all the 13,983,816 CombSixes in a 6/49
Lotto game for a match 3 can be done in around 87 lines is to consider
a 6/44 game.
By merging two Steiner C(22,6,3,3)=77 Covers (which can't be
improved), the first using the integers 1 to 22 and the second 23 to
44 we get 154 lines which is a 3if5 Cover for Pool 44 and of course
also a 3if6 with some overkill or redundancy as it can be done in 123
lines.
Applying the Pool 44 C(44,6,3,5)=154 to Pool 49 with an extra
6,924,764 CombSixes we find only 640,024 CombSixes uncovered. A search
for next best play produces many lines with a coverage of 154,924 and
if these made the cover we would need a minimum of 41 lines to give
195.
The current method to give the C(49,6,3,6)=163 uses a Steiner
C(22,6,3,3)=77 for 22 of the integers, which is the maximum compaction
of the possible 1540 CombThrees and then to merge a C(27,6,3,4)=86 for
the other 27 integers which covers another 1467 CombThrees to give a
total of 3007 (18424 possible CombThrees divided by 6 gives a ballpark
figure of 3070).
Effectively, Professor Iliya Bluskov is saying that a C(27,6,3,4)=86
can also be close to a C(49,6,3,6)=163 coverage which is absurd; the
reality is the C(27,6,3,4)=86 when applied to Pool 49 gives only a 60%
coverage.
See: -
http://www.colinfairbrother.com/UsingLesserPoolCoversInLotto.aspx
I can understand why Professor Iliya Bluskov has a low overall rating
by university students of only 2.8 - see,
http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=45812
Colin Fairbrother
Bluskov that a coverage of all the 13,983,816 CombSixes in a 6/49
Lotto game for a match 3 can be done in around 87 lines is to consider
a 6/44 game.
By merging two Steiner C(22,6,3,3)=77 Covers (which can't be
improved), the first using the integers 1 to 22 and the second 23 to
44 we get 154 lines which is a 3if5 Cover for Pool 44 and of course
also a 3if6 with some overkill or redundancy as it can be done in 123
lines.
Applying the Pool 44 C(44,6,3,5)=154 to Pool 49 with an extra
6,924,764 CombSixes we find only 640,024 CombSixes uncovered. A search
for next best play produces many lines with a coverage of 154,924 and
if these made the cover we would need a minimum of 41 lines to give
195.
The current method to give the C(49,6,3,6)=163 uses a Steiner
C(22,6,3,3)=77 for 22 of the integers, which is the maximum compaction
of the possible 1540 CombThrees and then to merge a C(27,6,3,4)=86 for
the other 27 integers which covers another 1467 CombThrees to give a
total of 3007 (18424 possible CombThrees divided by 6 gives a ballpark
figure of 3070).
Effectively, Professor Iliya Bluskov is saying that a C(27,6,3,4)=86
can also be close to a C(49,6,3,6)=163 coverage which is absurd; the
reality is the C(27,6,3,4)=86 when applied to Pool 49 gives only a 60%
coverage.
See: -
http://www.colinfairbrother.com/UsingLesserPoolCoversInLotto.aspx
I can understand why Professor Iliya Bluskov has a low overall rating
by university students of only 2.8 - see,
http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=45812
Colin Fairbrother
Dionysus
Sep 22, 2012, 7:31:22 PM9/22/12
to
The success of the prediction shall be achieved by sensation than mere logic.
Nan
Nan
Colin Fairbrother
Sep 23, 2012, 10:41:20 PM9/23/12
to
The Coup de Gras for the assertion by Professor Iliya Bluskov that a
C(49,6,3.6) can be done at around 87 lines is to consider the
correlation between the curves for 3if3, 3if4, 3if5 and 3if6 Covers
for various Pool sizes. See -
CORRELATION BETWEEN LOTTO COVER OR WHEEL GUARANTEES FOR VARIOUS POOL
SIZES
http://lottoposter.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=726
Currently the 3if5 for Pool 44 is 154 lines (it is also a 3if6 with
redundancy as it can be done in 123 lines which is 31% of the 3if3 393
lines) formed by merging two Steiner C(22,6,3,3)=77. The 154 lines is
39% of C(44,6,3,3)=393. If the Pool 44 with 7,059,052 combination of 6
integers could have the 3if6 done in 87 lines then this would be an
impossible 22% of 393 and this is close to saying that one Steiner
C(22,6,3,3)=77 can give close to a coverage of C(44,6,3,6). The
reality is that a C(22,6,3,3)=77 only gives a 30% 3if6 coverage when
applied to pool 44.
That being the case a Pool of 49 with almost double the combinations
of six integers at 13,983,816 a 3if6 coverage in 87 lines is around
double the impossibility as this would be only 8% of the 3if3 1084
lines instead of the current record of 163/1084 ie 15%.
Colin Fairbrother
C(49,6,3.6) can be done at around 87 lines is to consider the
correlation between the curves for 3if3, 3if4, 3if5 and 3if6 Covers
for various Pool sizes. See -
CORRELATION BETWEEN LOTTO COVER OR WHEEL GUARANTEES FOR VARIOUS POOL
SIZES
http://lottoposter.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=726
Currently the 3if5 for Pool 44 is 154 lines (it is also a 3if6 with
redundancy as it can be done in 123 lines which is 31% of the 3if3 393
lines) formed by merging two Steiner C(22,6,3,3)=77. The 154 lines is
39% of C(44,6,3,3)=393. If the Pool 44 with 7,059,052 combination of 6
integers could have the 3if6 done in 87 lines then this would be an
impossible 22% of 393 and this is close to saying that one Steiner
C(22,6,3,3)=77 can give close to a coverage of C(44,6,3,6). The
reality is that a C(22,6,3,3)=77 only gives a 30% 3if6 coverage when
applied to pool 44.
That being the case a Pool of 49 with almost double the combinations
of six integers at 13,983,816 a 3if6 coverage in 87 lines is around
double the impossibility as this would be only 8% of the 3if3 1084
lines instead of the current record of 163/1084 ie 15%.
Colin Fairbrother
zana...@gmail.com
Feb 5, 2013, 10:55:56 PM2/5/13
to
I see quite a few postings of yours referring to a post of mine dated some 15 years ago, which I wrote just for information of the readers. The post was based on recent research, and it did not contain any claims by me to begin with, but since you seem to enjoy any opportunity to criticize the poor professor, you just could not miss the opportunity. Now, you should read better before making pompous claims such as "Professor Iliya Bluskov promotes deceitful claims for Lotto Covers or Wheels", claims which are seen and read by anyone who search for my name. First of all, in my post (the link above) I do not claim that the (49,6,3,6) cover CAN BE DONE in 87 combinations. In fact, as I said, I DO NOT CLAIM ANYTHING in that post; I am just quoting research done by Furedi et al. The research does not imply in any possible way what you claim it implies. If you read carefully my post you will see a line saying: The minimum number of tickets in an (n,k,p,t)-lottery system is denoted
by C(n,k,p,t). So C(n,k,p,t) is just a notation for the theoretically possible lowest number of tickets in an (n,k,p,t)-lottery system. Then there is a claim (based on the work on Furedi et al.; a paper published in respected refereed journal in Combinatorics) that C(49,6,6,3)>=87. What does this say? It says: The theoretical minimum number of tickets for these parameters is 87. It does not say it can be done in 87 tickets. It does not say it can be done in 88 or 89 or 117 or anything like that. When this message was written, all that was known was C(49,6,6,3)<= 174. Currently the record is down to 163, so we know 87<=C(49,6,6,3)<=163, that is all.
What I said in my posting was: There is some room for improvement, and indeed some improvements were done over the years; the upper bound was improved from 174 to 163. There is still room for improvement, right?
Kind regards,
Iliya Bluskov
lot...@telus.net
Jan 12, 2014, 11:11:02 PM1/12/14
to
Mr Fairbrother
Just for the record and for your information: the quoted text is written by me in response to one of your posts on the thread you started, just one of the threads you started as a part of a smear campaign, designed to promote your own lotto strategies and sites. It is another example on how you twist and interpret facts to fit your agenda, or just to grab the attention, I guess.
Showing that this cover/wheel cannot be done in less than 163 combinations will bring instant fame to the author, and so will, although to a lesser extent, an improvement to 162 combinations or less.
Iliya Bluskov
> Mr. Fairbrother,
>
> I see quite a few postings of yours referring to a post of mine dated some 15 years ago, which I wrote just for information of the readers. The post was based on recent research, and it did not contain any claims by me to begin with, but since you seem to enjoy any opportunity to criticize the poor professor, you just could not miss the opportunity. Now, you should read better before making pompous claims such as "Professor Iliya Bluskov promotes deceitful claims for Lotto Covers or Wheels", claims which are seen and read by anyone who searches for my name. First of all, in my post (the link above) I do not claim that the (49,6,3,6) cover CAN BE DONE in 87 combinations. In fact, as I said, I DO NOT CLAIM ANYTHING in that post; I am just quoting research done by Furedi et al. This research does not imply in any possible way what you claim it implies. If you read carefully my post you will see a line saying: The minimum number of tickets in an (n,k,p,t)-lottery system is denoted
>
> by C(n,k,p,t). So C(n,k,p,t) is just a notation for the theoretically possible lowest number of tickets in an (n,k,p,t)-lottery system. Then there is a claim (based on the work of Furedi et al.; a paper published in a respected refereed journal in Combinatorics) that C(49,6,6,3)>=87. What does this say? It says: The theoretical minimum number of tickets for these parameters is 87. It does not say it can be done in 87 tickets. It does not say it can be done in 88 or 89 or 117 or anything like that. When this message was written, all that was known was C(49,6,6,3)<= 174. Currently the record is down to 163, so we know 87<=C(49,6,6,3)<=163, that is all.
Just for the record and for your information: the quoted text is written by me in response to one of your posts on the thread you started, just one of the threads you started as a part of a smear campaign, designed to promote your own lotto strategies and sites. It is another example on how you twist and interpret facts to fit your agenda, or just to grab the attention, I guess.
Showing that this cover/wheel cannot be done in less than 163 combinations will bring instant fame to the author, and so will, although to a lesser extent, an improvement to 162 combinations or less.
Iliya Bluskov
> Mr. Fairbrother,
>
> I see quite a few postings of yours referring to a post of mine dated some 15 years ago, which I wrote just for information of the readers. The post was based on recent research, and it did not contain any claims by me to begin with, but since you seem to enjoy any opportunity to criticize the poor professor, you just could not miss the opportunity. Now, you should read better before making pompous claims such as "Professor Iliya Bluskov promotes deceitful claims for Lotto Covers or Wheels", claims which are seen and read by anyone who searches for my name. First of all, in my post (the link above) I do not claim that the (49,6,3,6) cover CAN BE DONE in 87 combinations. In fact, as I said, I DO NOT CLAIM ANYTHING in that post; I am just quoting research done by Furedi et al. This research does not imply in any possible way what you claim it implies. If you read carefully my post you will see a line saying: The minimum number of tickets in an (n,k,p,t)-lottery system is denoted
>
> by C(n,k,p,t). So C(n,k,p,t) is just a notation for the theoretically possible lowest number of tickets in an (n,k,p,t)-lottery system. Then there is a claim (based on the work of Furedi et al.; a paper published in a respected refereed journal in Combinatorics) that C(49,6,6,3)>=87. What does this say? It says: The theoretical minimum number of tickets for these parameters is 87. It does not say it can be done in 87 tickets. It does not say it can be done in 88 or 89 or 117 or anything like that. When this message was written, all that was known was C(49,6,6,3)<= 174. Currently the record is down to 163, so we know 87<=C(49,6,6,3)<=163, that is all.
0 new messages