Absurd Cover Mathematics Is Not Relevant To Lotto
Colin Fairbrother
unreasonable in which case my analysis of 15 methods of arriving at a
set to play at http://lottoposter.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=583 is very
relevant considering as it does inferior sets produced with a lesser
number than the full pool. In a 6/49 Lotto game removing just one
integer takes a whopping 1,712,304 combinations out of consideration
for a win from the set you play.
The very relevant fact is that Lotto is about winning prizes not about
getting closer to some mathematical goal such as a Cover in the least
number of lines. Even a Cover done with no duplicate Threes as I have
done in 365 lines and GC in 358 is arrived at by making the 3if4 and
3if5 less than optimum when they are
no less important. The real relevant Lotto Cover for 3if6 without
distortion occurs incidentally at close to 385 lines. The idea in
originally writing my article on these Covers without duplicate Threes
was to parody the 163 line Cover with its gross distortion where
getting a single Three win is considered more important than getting 2
Threes which becomes more likely for a normal
prize distribution play set at the crossover point of 85 lines.
The fact is the 163 line Cover is recreational mathematics gone
berserk and is something of no value that has been foisted on Lotto
players by misguided mathematicians who believed Lotto players were
prepared to pay ridiculous amounts for a certain trifling prize when
compared to the amount wagered.
Consider the 3if3, 3if4 and 3if5 Coverage and instead of being for 163
lines from a non-distortionary generation of respectively 17.69431%,
56.78840%, 87.76818% and 99.32971% it is 16.32110%, 46.59282%,
82.33778% and 100%. When people in this area of interest consider
0.00001% to be relevant a difference of 10.19558% is monumental being
a million times that.
Considering other than the full pool is really the realm of the
occult, fortune telling and skulduggery where what has occurred
previously in some Lotto game is considered to be of value in
predicting a lesser number of integers as being relevant in the next
draw. People that believe and promote this nonsense come from all
walks of life including those with some mathematical and coding
abilities. Some eminent mathematicians from bygone times misguidedly
believed that lead could be turned into gold and spent a lot of time
and effort trying to achieve that. There is no reputable mathematician
with a Professorship or such that does not believe in the fundamental
cornerstone of Probability that of Events being Independent or
otherwise. If you believe that Lotto draws are anything other than an
Independent Event you are a nutcase or at the very least a misguided
fool.
The best guide to producing a set of numbers to play in Lotto comes
from Random Selections and from there just a bit of tweaking is
possible and that is why it is rated second only to using all integers
and maximizing the coverage for 3if3, 3if4,3if5 and then 3if6 in that
order. Show me a Lotto history with a contiguous set of draws that
comes anywhere near the 163 line distorted Cover whereas 163 lines
using the guidelines mentioned is possible even if it has not
occurred.
The fight goes on between reality and absurdity in producing sets of
numbers to play in Lotto. I have no expectation of converting the
ignorant or those with a vested interest in promoting the absurd ideas
from the 80's on Lotto number sets to play and even less expectation
in expecting a change in mindset from numerologists or occultists in
general.
Colin Fairbrother