2 5/26 PICK-5 WHEELS / Lotto-Logix
Robert Perkis
by Robert Perkis
Why is it so hard to make good Pick-5 wheels? With the odds
of the Fl 5/26 being so low (1: 65,780) and a Pick-6, 3if6in26
number wheel requiring only 27 tickets or less to cover, where
is the comparable Pick-5 version? I went hunting through
wheeling books and lotto software and found 3if5in26# wheels
requiring from 96 to 135 combinations to guarantee a 3#
winning ticket (worth about $4.50) if all five winning numbers
are among the 26 being played.
The problem is, a five number ticket simply doesn't buy as
many lower tier combinations as a 6 number ticket. Recall
your Pick-3 wheeling tables? In Pick-3 it takes 4
combinations to wheel 4 numbers, 10 to wheel 5 numbers and 20
to wheel six numbers. So every Pick-6 ticket is covering 20
three number combinations, while Pick-5 tickets cover only 10.
Combinations Combinations Combinations
Pick-5 Pick-6
3#'s 10 20
4#'s 5 15
5#'s 1 6
6#'s 0 1
Total Combinations 16 42
If you buy two Pick-6 tickets with all numbers different and
all six winning numbers fall among your twelve, you are
guaranteed at least two 3# tickets. If only five numbers fall
among them you are guaranteed at least one 3# ticket.
In Pick-5, if you buy two Pick-5 tickets with all numbers
different and all five winning numbers fall among your ten,
you are guaranteed only one 3# ticket. If only four numbers
fall among them you are guaranteed nothing.
Pick-6 offers the wheel maker balance and symmetry to build
wheels that interlock like Leggo Blocks (r) while Pick-5
wheels quickly become patch work quilts of coverage. As a
result, Pick-5 can tear up a lotto player's budget, especially
when played five days a week.
The two wheels in this article are partial covering designs.
This means we gave up a percentage of coverage to reduce the
total number of combinations necessary to patch up the wheel
to the 100% guarantee of 3if5in26#'s, 18 or 68 combinations.
Frankly, I don't recommend you play these wheels considering
the cost vs likely prizes to be won. If you must play Pick-5
wheels, I suggest you add them to lottery software such as
Lottery Director, http://www.ldir.com so you can filter them
down to a reasonable number of combinations per draw.
In Pick-6 I use a combination of Gail Howard's Lotto Advantage
Plus, http://www.gailhoward.com/ Entertainment On Line's
(E.O.L.) Ultimate Lottery Tracker and Wheeler Power Player
Edition, http://www.eol.com FutureSoft's Lottery line builder,
http://www.futuresoft.co.uk/lottery/ and the Lottery Director
program, http://www.ldir.com (Call these ads if you like, but
I don't get anything for this and it saves me answering about
a hundred e-mails.) Pick-6 is so big you have to use some
tools to break it down, to something you can get your mind
around.
The Pick-3 and Pick-4 daily number games and Pick-5 are a
different story because you have to keep the playing costs
down. I like a program like Joe Lynn's Lotto Wizard,
http://moneyaction.com/lottowizard/index.htm because it picks
a balanced group of five tickets at a time. Lotto Wizard hit
the Florida Pick-3 straight on 08/24/98 2-4-5 and got a 3# win
in Pick-5 this week so I am happy, thanks Joe Lynn. I'm going
to have to do a review on Lotto Wizard soon, more work. (sigh)
To use these wheels, write out the numbers 01-26 and write
your numbers below or along side, then like a child's code you
swap your numbers for mine in the combinations below.
There are 26 numbers, on the following 18 tickets:
01) 01-02-07-15-18 02) 01-03-08-14-25 03) 01-11-16-20-24
04) 02-03-04-16-23 05) 02-05-09-22-26 06) 03-05-13-21-24
07) 03-09-10-12-20 08) 04-07-13-14-26 09) 04-09-13-21-24
10) 04-11-17-21-22 11) 05-10-11-23-25 12) 05-12-15-16-17
13) 06-09-13-16-18 14) 06-11-14-15-19 15) 06-12-22-23-24
16) 06-20-21-25-26 17) 08-10-17-19-26 18) 08-13-15-20-23
3if3: 240 missing from 2600 - about 1 chance in 14 to win
3if4: 11080 missing from 14950 - about 1 chance in 4 to win
3if5: 30248 missing from 65780 - a 54% chance of winning
4if4: 14860 missing from 14950 - about 1 chance in 166 to win
4if5: 63872 missing from 65780 - about 1 chance in 34 to win
5if5: 65762 missing from 65780 - about 1 chance in 3654 to win
It would take 65780 combinations to fully cover 26 numbers.
*----------------------------------------------------------*
There are 26 numbers, on the following 68 tickets:
01) 01-02-03-04-14 02) 01-02-09-21-24 03) 01-03-07-09-11
04) 01-03-17-24-26 05) 01-04-08-09-17 06) 01-04-20-22-26
07) 01-05-07-15-21 08) 01-05-11-17-18 09) 01-06-10-15-19
10) 01-06-13-21-23 11) 01-08-11-16-23 12) 01-09-10-13-26
13) 01-10-12-23-25 14) 01-12-14-18-26 15) 02-03-09-10-17
16) 02-04-06-15-21 17) 02-04-09-23-26 18) 02-05-14-15-17
19) 02-06-07-08-17 20) 02-06-12-16-20 21) 02-07-13-16-23
22) 02-08-11-19-25 23) 02-11-14-18-23 24) 02-12-22-24-26
25) 02-15-18-19-26 26) 03-04-06-13-17 27) 03-04-10-11-21
28) 03-05-10-15-20 29) 03-06-07-10-25 30) 03-06-09-15-23
31) 03-07-12-13-15 32) 03-09-14-16-26 33) 03-10-14-18-22
34) 03-11-12-14-20 35) 03-14-21-24-25 36) 04-05-07-16-26
37) 04-05-11-24-25 38) 04-06-09-14-25 39) 04-07-17-20-24
40) 04-08-12-13-15 41) 04-10-15-17-22 42) 04-13-18-19-25
43) 05-06-09-10-24 44) 05-07-12-14-23 45) 05-08-16-17-22
46) 05-09-15-22-26 47) 05-10-19-22-25 48) 05-13-15-16-24
49) 06-07-14-19-26 50) 06-10-11-12-18 51) 06-11-15-16-25
52) 06-15-18-22-24 53) 07-08-12-19-24 54) 07-09-16-17-18
55) 07-11-15-20-26 56) 08-09-11-18-24 57) 08-10-11-13-17
58) 08-12-20-23-26 59) 08-15-22-23-25 60) 09-12-13-19-22
61) 09-17-23-24-25 62) 10-12-14-15-16 63) 10-13-18-20-23
64) 11-13-15-19-23 65) 12-13-16-17-21 66) 13-14-17-18-24
67) 14-16-17-19-25 68) 15-21-23-24-26
3if3: 1922 missing from 2600 - about 1 chance in 4 to win
3if4: 4612 missing from 14950 - a 69% chance of winning
3if5: 3885 missing from 65780 - a 94% chance of winning
4if4: 14610 missing from 14950 - about 1 chance in 44 to win
4if5: 58580 missing from 65780 - about 1 chance in 9 to win
5if5: 65712 missing from 65780 - about 1 chance in 967 to win
It would take 65,780 combinations to fully cover 26 numbers.
*-----------------------------------------------------------*
I included the lower tier prize odds so these wheels may be
used in larger Pick-5 games. If you play PowerBall it works
the same way for the Pick-5 part. I've been told the best way
to get the single PowerBall is to keep track of how often they
have hit and play the 6 that have gone the longest since their
last hit. If it doesn't work, you didn't see it here. ;-)
Good luck to you.
Robert Perkis
Adolf Muehl
> TWO 5/26 PICK-5 WHEELS / Lotto-Logix
> by Robert Perkis
>Why is it so hard to make good Pick-5 wheels? With the odds
>of the Fl 5/26 being so low (1: 65,780) and a Pick-6, 3if6in26
>number wheel requiring only 27 tickets or less to cover, where
>is the comparable Pick-5 version?
A comparable Pick-5 version requires 68 tickets (best currently known).
It can be easily constructed by combining two 3on3 for 13 numbers in
34 tickets. You can download the c(v=13,k=5,t=3)<=34 from Dan Gordons
covering repository.
>There are 26 numbers, on the following 68 tickets:
>01) 01-02-03-04-14...
>3if3: 1922 missing from 2600 - about 1 chance in 4 to win
>3if4: 4612 missing from 14950 - a 69% chance of winning
>3if5: 3885 missing from 65780 - a 94% chance of winning
Would be interesting to see the odds for the above mentioned
68 ticket wheel with the 100% chance of winning on 3if5.
>Good luck to you.
To you too.
Adolf Muehl
John Rawson
<rob...@icanect.net> writes
> TWO 5/26 PICK-5 WHEELS / Lotto-Logix
> by Robert Perkis
>
>
>01) 01-02-07-15-18 02) 01-03-08-14-25 03) 01-11-16-20-24
>04) 02-03-04-16-23 05) 02-05-09-22-26 06) 03-05-13-21-24
>07) 03-09-10-12-20 08) 04-07-13-14-26 09) 04-09-13-21-24
>10) 04-11-17-21-22 11) 05-10-11-23-25 12) 05-12-15-16-17
>13) 06-09-13-16-18 14) 06-11-14-15-19 15) 06-12-22-23-24
>16) 06-20-21-25-26 17) 08-10-17-19-26 18) 08-13-15-20-23
>
>3if3: 240 missing from 2600 - about 1 chance in 14 to win
>3if4: 11080 missing from 14950 - about 1 chance in 4 to win
>3if5: 30248 missing from 65780 - a 54% chance of winning
>4if4: 14860 missing from 14950 - about 1 chance in 166 to win
>4if5: 63872 missing from 65780 - about 1 chance in 34 to win
>5if5: 65762 missing from 65780 - about 1 chance in 3654 to win
The following 18 plays offer improvements with no sacrifices...
01 02 07 18 19
01 03 09 10 20
01 04 11 17 22
01 08 12 14 25
02 03 04 16 25
02 05 09 22 26
03 05 14 18 21
03 06 11 15 19
04 06 10 12 13
05 10 11 23 25
06 20 21 25 26
07 11 16 20 24
07 13 14 23 26
08 10 17 24 26
08 13 15 20 22
09 13 19 21 24
12 15 16 17 21
12 18 22 23 24
1921 missing
>3if4: 4612 missing from 14950 - a 69% chance of winning
4599 missing
>3if5: 3885 missing from 65780 - a 94% chance of winning
3898 missing
>4if4: 14610 missing from 14950 - about 1 chance in 44 to win
correct
>4if5: 58580 missing from 65780 - about 1 chance in 9 to win
58576 missing
>5if5: 65712 missing from 65780 - about 1 chance in 967 to win
>
The following 68 plays offer improved cover on 3/4 3/5 & 4/5 with the
sacrifice of just one treble on 3/3...
01 02 03 10 26
01 02 08 13 25
01 03 11 13 14
01 04 07 18 23
01 04 16 20 22
01 05 06 11 19
01 05 15 21 24
01 06 09 12 15
01 06 10 23 24
01 07 08 09 17
01 12 14 18 25
01 17 21 22 23
01 19 20 25 26
02 03 05 18 21
02 03 12 20 25
02 04 06 17 26
02 04 11 14 22
02 05 07 17 19
02 05 09 14 23
02 07 13 16 23
02 08 11 18 20
02 09 10 15 21
02 12 22 24 26
02 16 19 20 24
03 04 08 09 19
03 04 15 17 20
03 05 23 24 26
03 06 07 16 22
03 06 18 19 24
03 07 10 15 25
03 08 18 22 26
03 09 11 16 23
03 12 13 17 21
04 05 07 13 25
04 05 09 15 22
04 06 10 11 12
04 08 10 14 17
04 08 12 23 26
04 09 13 18 24
04 11 21 24 25
04 14 19 21 23
05 06 14 20 22
05 08 10 16 18
05 08 14 21 26
05 10 13 20 23
05 10 19 22 25
05 11 12 16 17
06 07 13 14 26
06 08 11 15 24
06 08 13 20 21
06 09 16 21 25
06 17 18 23 25
07 08 12 19 24
07 09 14 20 24
07 11 15 20 26
07 11 18 21 22
07 12 20 21 23
08 15 22 23 25
09 10 18 20 26
09 11 17 25 26
09 12 13 19 22
10 12 14 15 16
10 13 17 22 24
10 16 19 21 26
11 13 15 19 23
13 15 16 18 26
14 15 17 18 19
14 16 17 24 25
All the best...
--
John Rawson
Adolf Muehl
> Hi Adolf: Always a pleasure to see your name in the thread.
Thanks.
> While we have your attention, could you find the time to tell
> the group about these covering repositories, what all of the
> codes stand for and why some wheels must be requested
> and sent e-mail.
I'll give it a try:
First the Mathematical Definitions:
A Covering Design(or Lottery Wheel) C(v,k,t,m,l,b) is a pair (V,B),
where V is a set of v elements (called points) and B is a collection
of b k-subsets of V (called blocks), such that every m-subset of V
intersects at least l members of B in at least t points (v >= k >= t
and m >= t)
For the Lottery you have:
v = numbers to be wheeled
k = 6 for Pick-6-Lotteries or 5 for the Pick-5 L.
t = guaranteed minimum winning
m = numbers you have to guess from the v numbers in order to get your
t-win, l = usually 1, b = number of tickets you need to
guarantee the t-win
I prefer the notation c(v,k,t,m,l)<=b or as l=1 c(v,k,t,m)<=b.
Other words for a covering design or lottery wheel are:
'cover', 'system', 'block design', 'constant weight covering code', or
'Lottosystem' in German.
A Pick-5, 3on5 wheel for 26 numbers requiring 68 tickets is a
c(26,5,3,5,1,68), or a c(26,5,3,5)<=68.
I am aware of 3 'covering repositories' on the net:
1.) Dan Gordon's site at
http://sdcc12.ucsd.edu/~xm3dg/cover.html
He has a collection of covers for v<=32, k<=16, t<=8, and
very important: m=t !!!
Covers with k around 10 could be used in Keno-games.
To request a cover from him simply type in the numbers v, k, and
t and your email-address and the cover c(v,k,t,m=t) is mailed to you.
2) Peter Rosendahl' site at:
http://www.algonet.se/~peteros/lmain.htm
He has wheels for Pick-3 to 'Pick-9 Lotteries'
Example: a Pick-6 'Guarantee 3/4 in 9 Number's 3 lines' wheel on
his site is a c(9,6,3,4)=3.
All the wheels can be downloaded.
3) Rade Belic' site at:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rbelic
He is maintaining the most complete list of bounds (the current
mimimun size) on coverings.
An entry of his list usually has the form
23,6,5,5 6164
That is a c(23,6,5,5)=6164 cover.
He has also some wheels for downloading on that site.
Constructing good covers (good = less tickets same guarantee) is
a pretty difficult task. The efforts for finding better covers are
justified by their importance as error correcting codes in data
transmissions.
Hope that helps.
> Here are the results from testing the Dan Gorden wheel. . .
>
> 3if3: 2028 missing from 2600 - about 1 chance in 5 to win
> 3if4: 6048 missing from 14950 - a 59% chance of winning
> 3if5: 0 missing from 65780 - that's a GUARANTEED WIN!
> 4if4: 14610 missing from 14950 - about 1 chance in 44 to win
> 4if5: 59308 missing from 65780 - about 1 chance in 10 to win
> 5if5: 65712 missing from 65780 - about 1 chance in 967 to win
>
> Interesting isn't it? Need I say more about the need for a wheel
> checker? For lotto players there's more to a wheel, then the
> posted guarantee. You should know what coverage you are
> buying for ALL prize levels if you are hoping the wheel will play
> above its posted guarantee.
Unfortunately you are not giving the numbers of multiple wins in each
category in your tables. We would see that a loss in single wins is
compensated by an increase in multiple wins.
I use the opportunity again to emphasize that the average winning
rate **over a long period of time** is always a constant depending
only on the average amount paid for the prizes. It does not matter
which 68 lines are played - your 68, my 68, 68 random lines, or even
68 times the same ticket. In most Lotteries the winning rate is
0.2 to 0.4, in other words you are going to loose 60-80% of your
invested money.
For a *short period of time* you can be on the 'positive side'
for some time, if you hit the big one early even for a really long
time. But the only way to get on the positive side is to be lucky. I
hope you folks here are all aware that these wheels, filters,
prediction attempts or whatever nonsense else are just for personal
entertainment and do nothing to bring you on the 'positive lottery
side'.
Keep playing,
Adolf Muehl
Edwin Carrasquillo
wheels.
CDEX
If this is duplicated on your news server, please accept my apology. We
monitor three different servers, and the original post appeared on only our
home server. Apparently it did not get picked up on the other two. As
there were no responses, I thought it might have been dropped on your
server also.
Bob Perkis uses part of Adolf's post in the r.g.l. FAQ. I thought the
reply would be pertinent to the thread, so here goes again . . .
(original post follows)
-------------------------------
Hi Adolf,
You're absolutely right about the expected return. If I may offer a
different
view ...
- - - - - - - - - -
In article <6s60fu$697c$1...@www.univie.ac.at>,
Adolf...@univie.ac.at (Adolf Muehl) wrote:
>
... (snip for brevity) ...
>
> We would see that a loss in single wins is
> compensated by an increase in multiple wins.
>
> I use the opportunity again to emphasize that the average winning
> rate **over a long period of time** is always a constant depending
> only on the average amount paid for the prizes. It does not matter
> which 68 lines are played - your 68, my 68, 68 random lines, or even
> 68 times the same ticket. In most Lotteries the winning rate is
> 0.2 to 0.4, in other words you are going to loose 60-80% of your
> invested money.
> For a *short period of time* you can be on the 'positive side'
> for some time, if you hit the big one early even for a really long
> time. But the only way to get on the positive side is to be lucky. I
> hope you folks here are all aware that these wheels, filters,
> prediction attempts or whatever nonsense else are just for personal
> entertainment and do nothing to bring you on the 'positive lottery
> side'.
>
> Keep playing,
>
> Adolf Muehl
>
- - - - - - - - - -
When viewing a player's decision to wheel or not wheel, there may be some
motivation for wheeling. It isn't based on the final total value of the
prizes returned over a long period of time. It's based on the more
immediate
needs of the player, at the current time.
For example: Let us consider 'identical' versus 'different' combinations.
The chance of scoring a 4-number match in a 6/49 game is a bit more than 1
in
1,000.
If we put 100 _identical_ tickets into play, we would expect to make one
4-match about once in 1,000 draws. The reason, naturally, is that we are
offering just one unique set of matches, and are offering it redundantly
100
times. Of course when we do finally score that winning match, we will get
100 times the single- prize reward at that point (ignoring any slight
effect
of sharing parimutuel payouts).
If we put 100 _different_ tickets into play, we would expect to make one
4-match about once in 10 draws. When that happens, we would get just the 1
prize (assuming there are no duplicate 4-matches in the tickets).
Over an extended time, the value of the total prize amount returned is the
same in either case. In the first case above, a '1 in 1,000' chance could
win in the very next draw, or in the next few draws. But the most likely
prospect would be for the player to wait a long time. However in the
second
case there is at least the prospect of some relatively steady return in the
current time frame.
Or, viewing it from a different side: Suppose a 6/49 game holds two draws
per week, or 104 draws per year. In the first case, our expectation would
be
to see a 4-number win about once in 10 years; in the second case, it would
be
about 10 such wins per year.
The '0.2 to 0.4' return just occurs more steadily in the second case,
meaning
that at least some of the prize money can be put back into play at the
present time. Otherwise the return rate of the prize money would be less
than
that now, with the '0.2 to 0.4' average only being realized through a
larger
win at a later time. I believe this is a major consideration for a player
who must meet a practical budget limit right now -- i.e., there is a lower
budget for current play, rather than a higher budget for long-term play.
One other point deals with taxes (in the USA). Lottery winnings are taxable
income, but a player can declare, as expenses, any losses up to the amount
won. That is, if a player wins $120 against a cost of $100 in losing
tickets,
then only the $20 difference becomes taxable. The rub is: all of the
winnings and losses must occur within the same calendar year. Losses can
be
used to offset winnings, but losses alone cannot be declared (the net
amount
cannot go below zero). Therefore a steadier flow of wins/losses in the same
calendar year could benefit the player, compared to a series of losses over
earlier years followed by a larger win in a later year.
- - - - - - - - - -
The above example contrasts playing 100 "same" tickets versus 100
"different"
tickets.
A similar case could be made for playing 100 "random" tickets versus 100
"wheeled" tickets. It's a bit less clear to see, but the point is the
same.
The expected return, over an extended time, would be the same for either
set
of 100 tickets.
The random tickets would probably have both missing matches (holes) and
duplicate matches (redundancies). We would expect to go a longer time
between
successful matches with the game's winning numbers (because of the holes),
but
with a correspondingly higher multiple prize when we finally do get a match
(because of the redundancies).
The wheeled tickets, which probably by design have no holes, and have as
few
redundancies as possible, would seem to provide a steadier flow of single
prizes.
- - - - - - - - - -
Again, it would seem that most of this is a player's motivation to "see
something happening". It might also touch on the question of whether
lottery
play has something in it that can be enjoyed on an ongoing basis, in
addition
to the chance of a major win.
For example, one might enjoy collecting stamps for years, but will never
find
that Hawaiian issue in a random packet. One might enjoy playing Lotto for
the same amount of time and cost, and just *might* hit a major prize of
equal
value. 'Enjoyment' more or less implies a steady involvement in the
activity,
therefore the motivation is present to "see something happening". It would
seem to be a valid point to be able to add to the present enjoyment,
without
deteriorating the long term chances in any way.
As you pointed out, there can be entertainment value in using certain kinds
of
combinations. There could also be some practical value as outlined above,
but
it applies individually to each player. It probably can't be quantified in
general terms.
Best regards,
Joe
CDEX
Robert Perkis
John Rawson wrote:
> In article <35E3F379...@icanect.net>, Robert Perkis
> <rob...@icanect.net> writes
> > TWO 5/26 PICK-5 WHEELS / Lotto-Logix
> > by Robert Perkis
> >
> >There are 26 numbers, on the following 18 tickets:
> >
> >01) 01-02-07-15-18 02) 01-03-08-14-25 03) 01-11-16-20-24
> >04) 02-03-04-16-23 05) 02-05-09-22-26 06) 03-05-13-21-24
> >07) 03-09-10-12-20 08) 04-07-13-14-26 09) 04-09-13-21-24
> >10) 04-11-17-21-22 11) 05-10-11-23-25 12) 05-12-15-16-17
> >13) 06-09-13-16-18 14) 06-11-14-15-19 15) 06-12-22-23-24
> >16) 06-20-21-25-26 17) 08-10-17-19-26 18) 08-13-15-20-23
> >
> >3if3: 2420 missing from 2600 - about 1 chance in 14 to win
> 2421 missing
> >3if4: 11080 missing from 14950 - about 1 chance in 4 to win
> 11142 missing
> >3if5: 30248 missing from 65780 - a 54% chance of winning
> 30936 missing
> >4if4: 14860 missing from 14950 - about 1 chance in 166 to win
> correct
> >4if5: 63872 missing from 65780 - about 1 chance in 34 to win
> 63876 missing
> >5if5: 65762 missing from 65780 - about 1 chance in 3654 to win
> correct
>
That was my attempt, now let's put John's wheel into
lottostat and see how it tests out....
> The following 18 plays offer improvements with no sacrifices...
>
> 01 02 07 18 19
> 01 03 09 10 20
> 01 04 11 17 22
> 01 08 12 14 25
> 02 03 04 16 25
> 02 05 09 22 26
> 03 05 14 18 21
> 03 06 11 15 19
> 04 06 10 12 13
> 05 10 11 23 25
> 06 20 21 25 26
> 07 11 16 20 24
> 07 13 14 23 26
> 08 10 17 24 26
> 08 13 15 20 22
> 09 13 19 21 24
> 12 15 16 17 21
> 12 18 22 23 24
>
> >
> >It would take 65780 combinations to fully cover 26 numbers.
>
The test results of John Rawson's 26 number 18 combination wheel.
3if3: 2420 missing from 2600 - about 1 chance in 14 to win
3if4: 11080 missing from 14950 - about 1 chance in 4 to win
3if5: 30176 missing from 65780 - a 54% chance of winning
4if4: 14860 missing from 14950 - about 1 chance in 166 to win
4if5: 63872 missing from 65780 - about 1 chance in 34 to win
5if5: 65762 missing from 65780 - about 1 chance in 3654
Keep moving, nothing to see here. Hmmm, an insignificant
pick up in 3 if 5 from 30248 to 30176, not enough to kick
over a percentage point. In John's wheel, all numbers
appear 3 or 4 times. In mine, #7 and #18 appear only 2
times, all others 3 or 4 times, this left room for improvement.
When I saw 54% 3 if 5, I lost my will to continue.
> >*----------------------------------------------------------*
> >
More below. . .
Improved cover, eh? Now we put John Rawson's
26 number 68 combination wheel into Lottostat. . . .
The results of John's wheel. . . .
3if3: 1920 missing from 2600 - about 1 chance in 4 to win
3if4: 3652 missing from 14950 - a 76% chance of winning
3if5: 1044 missing from 65780 - a 98% chance of winning
4if4: 14610 missing from 14950 - about 1 chance in 44 to win
4if5: 58572 missing from 65780 - about 1 chance in 9 to win
5if5: 65712 missing from 65780 - about 1 chance in 967 to win
A significant improvement in 3 if 4 and 3 if 5 from 69% to 76%
and from 94% to 98%. A slight improvement in 4 if 5 from
58580 missing to 58572. Both 26 number 68 ticket partial
cover wheels offer an improved chance to play above their
3 if 5 guarantee when compared to the 100% guaranteed
3if5in26#'s68T wheel's 4 if 5 one chance in 10 of winning.
Remember, there is more to wheeling, then the minimum
guarantee. If you don't test and compare wheels, you don't
know what other tier prize coverage you are buying.
Congratulations go to John Rawson.
Good luck to you. Robert Perkis
> All the best...
>
> --
> John Rawson
franc...@gmail.com
Is some of these wheels, from the Profesor Illia Bluskov?
Anyone know his books?
Anyone know something about the theory of Renato Gianella?
I'm a player of a pick 5 game, and i'm using my own system, with odds, prime, sum and Renato Gianella pattern.
Also, I'm using the Bluskov's wheels, but I'm searching for new methods.
Thank you
