Wheeling vs Random Number Selection.

[Nick UK]

Wish I'd remembered the following Joe Roberts article a couple of years ago
when 'Wheeling vs Random Number Selection' was a subject in this ng. Sadly,
Joe no longer subscribes here and has retired from producing Lottery
Director (CDEX) software.

LOTTERY WHEELING vs RANDOM NUMBER SELECTION.

Author: Joe Roberts

Q. I assume when you wheel your odds of winning the bigger prizes get much
better. But do you give up something so you have more losing tickets in the
long run?

A. Wheeling does not affect your odds of winning any prize. Its main job
is to give you a known match for a known cost. It's sometimes called a
"conditional win guarantee". The key word there is "conditional".

Sometimes it gets left out, so that the remaining words "win guarantee"
sound like a sure win. There is no such thing, neither with the wheel nor
without it.

What a typical wheel of good design does is this. If you match a stated
minimum amount of the game's winning numbers, then you have a stated
likelihood that one or more of your wheeled combinations will have a stated
size of winning match. For example, a typical wheel could stated something
like this:

"The game will draw 6 winning numbers. If you match any 5 of them, you will
have at least one combination that contains 4 winning numbers in it, and you
can be 100 per cent sure of having it."

Or ...

"The game will draw 6 winning numbers. If you match any 4 of them, you will
have at least one combination that contains 3 winning numbers, and you can
be 90 per cent sure."

There are many variations of wheels. You could visit some of the wheeling
sites listed in the newsgroup's FAQ, and get a pretty good idea of the
variety of wheels that are available.

There are two practical values to wheeling. One is that you know in advance
what your matching requirements are, what size of prize you'll see if you
fulfil those matching requirements, and what your cost will be. The second
value is in the spacing of your wins at the lower prize levels, giving you
some control over your playing budget.

When you play a set of combinations that were made at random, you probably
do not cover every possible lower-prize match for the cost you are
outlaying. In other words, you can expect to have some missing matches
(called "holes"). If you happen to match the game's winning numbers, you
may not have any prize in your combinations. For example, you might not
have all of the possible 3-number sets present in your random combinations.

You matched all 6 winning numbers in your full set of numbers, but you might
see no more than 2 winning numbers in any combination. Where those "holes"
exist in your combinations, there's no prize for that drawing. Those
"holes" are compensated for by your having duplicated matches of your other
numbers, so if you happen to match those other numbers you'll have duplicate
prizes for that drawing. The trouble is, you can't predict which numbers
the game is going to draw, so you don't know (with the random combinations)
if the drawing will hit one of your "holes" or one of your duplicates.

If you put those two pieces together -- "holes" and duplicates in the
matches -- it means that you will tend to win multiple lower prizes spaced
farther apart in time. On the other hand, a well designed wheel contains
more balanced coverage of the matches. With it, you will tend to win single
lower prizes more often.

In all cases, for any given set of numbers that you play, and for the same
amount of combinations you make with them, the _total_ matches you will see
over a long period of time will be the same for both the random combinations
and the wheeled ones. That's _total_ matches, over a long time. They
come smaller and more often with wheeling. They come larger and less often
with random combinations.

Note that the above only applies to your lower-prize matches. Your Jackpot
chances are not affected in any way by either set of combinations -- random
or wheeled.

So the "benefit" to wheeling goes something like this. If you hope to get a
big win, you must expect to be into the game for a long time (a _very_ long
time). You'll have to play fairly consistently, over a series of draws.

Until you get a major win, you'll have a net cash outgo -- not income --
because your minor wins will _not_ offset your expenses until you see that
major prize. Any minor wins you receive, gives you cash you can replay. As
that happens you will outlay a proportionately lower amount of your own
cash, freeing the remainder for other (non-lottery) investment or other use
as you see fit.

It is confusing as can be, unless you try to visualize it like this:

When you play random combinations, you must expect longer periods of
no-wins, followed by some multiple minor win (say, two or three matches in
the same draw). You can't help it. It's determined by the amounts of
"holes" and duplicates in your combinations. You cannot know just _when_
that multiple win will occur. It could occur on the next drawing, and then
be followed by the long no-win dry spell. Or, you could see the long no-win
dry spell run on for many drawings, eventually followed by some distant
multiple win in one drawing. Obviously if the former happens you can begin
with a slight cash windfall which you can budget for future play. But if
the latter happens you will go through a long period of no money coming back
to you, meaning that you must make the full and continuous cash outlay on
your part. You can't assume which of those effects you'll see, with your
random combinations.

Now contrast it with the wheeled combinations, for the same set of numbers.
You will see smaller wins, occurring more often. At any point in time, you
know more closely -- not perfectly, but better -- what your cash outlays
will be.

Either way -- random or wheeled -- you will see the same total cost and the
same total amount of prizes over a long time, perhaps over a span of several
years. But with the wheeled combinations, your minor wins will come to you
as a succession of relatively short-term smaller wins. With your random
combinations, your minor wins will come as series of long dry no-win spells
punctuated by larger wins.

Keep this timing effect in the same view with your playing goal. You won't
make money in Lotto with minor wins. All they can do is offset your cost
toward the big win. Your goal is a major win like the Jackpot or large
second prize. With that goal you have to expect to be in the game for the
long term, probably for years. Suppose a set of combinations gives you back
20 per cent on your play, from minor wins. Over the long term you will be
outlaying 80 per cent of your cost toward a big win. Consider how you will
have to outlay that 80 per cent -- meaning, how you will get the 20 per cent
on return from minor wins.

With the wheeled combinations, your cost will be a more steady 80 per cent
than with the random combinations. To illustrate it, with the wheeled
combinations you might outlay something close to 80 per cent of your playing
cost in each year for three years. With the random combinations, you might
outlay 100 per cent of your playing cost in two of the three years, with
just
40 per cent in the other year. The point is, with random combinations you
cannot know in advance what cost will occur in any of those three years.

(There is a way to calculate your average cost, by running a 'matching
validation' test on the random combinations, but there would be little point
in doing it. You would know your average cost, but you still couldn't
predict the actual cost in any year.) So if you have other ideas for your
ready cash besides playing the Lotto (and one hopes you do), then you can
manage the cash more closely with the wheeling.

For USA players there is also some benefit in your net taxable income from
wins, with wheeling. There are some benefits where prizes are paid on the
pari-mutuel, although they are slight.

The bottom line is, it does not cost you any more to wheel your numbers than
it does to put them into the same quantity of random combinations. Your
Jackpot chances are identical, either way. The difference is in the more
balanced coverage of lower-prize matches.

Joe Roberts.

[Parpaluck]

Playing Lotto Wheels Is Bad Moneywise

Ukitser:

I couldn’t disagree with you (with Kokostirk, for that matter) more — but not this time. For this time around I disagree with you 110%.

The static lotto wheels, or reduced lotto systems are simple myths of the lottery. The ordinary lotto wheels accelerate the loss to harm lottery players compared to playing random combinations. The “wheelers” go the extra mile in the wrong direction. They “torture” the numbers to meet the minimal conditions.

Many lotto numbers only see a preferential group, while not meeting numbers in “the other group”. At worst, the lotto wheels go to the extreme insofar as being “split wheels”. The most (in)famous case is represented by the 6-49 lotto wheel “guaranteeing 3 of 6 in 163 tickets”. That’s really bad, because the jackpot is eliminated right from the start. That “lotto wheel” is actually a weird play: Two independent groups of lotto numbers (22 and 27 numbers in groups that don’t “see” each other!)

Playing an equivalent amount of random combosnations does lead to better results, as proven in my scientific research:

“Lotto Wheels, Reduced Lotto Systems: The Myth of Lottery”
http://saliu.com/bbs/messages/11.html

It doesn’t mean that playing random combinations assure bigger lotto winnings. It simply means that playing random lotto combosnations leads to LOWER LOSSES, as compared to playing lotto wheels. Playing lotto wheels leads to HIGHER LOSSES because the wheels optimize lower prizes while decreasing the chances for higher prizes.

“Stripper, stripper you look good —
Wheel me in the perfect mood.”


Parpaluck,
18-Wheeler At-Large
http://saliu.com/lottery-utility.html
http://saliu.com/images/Bible-bullshit.jpg

“A good man is an axiomatic man; an axiomatic man is a happy man. Be axiomatic!”

[Nick UK]

"Parpaluck" wrote

Playing Lotto Wheels Is Bad Moneywise

Ukitser:

I couldn't disagree with you (with Kokostirk, for that matter) more - but

not this time. For this time around I disagree with you 110%.

The static lotto wheels, or reduced lotto systems are simple myths of the
lottery. The ordinary lotto wheels accelerate the loss to harm lottery
players compared to playing random combinations. The "wheelers" go the extra
mile in the wrong direction. They "torture" the numbers to meet the minimal
conditions.

Many lotto numbers only see a preferential group, while not meeting numbers
in "the other group". At worst, the lotto wheels go to the extreme insofar
as being "split wheels". The most (in)famous case is represented by the 6-49
lotto wheel "guaranteeing 3 of 6 in 163 tickets". That's really bad, because
the jackpot is eliminated right from the start. That "lotto wheel" is
actually a weird play: Two independent groups of lotto numbers (22 and 27
numbers in groups that don't "see" each other!)

Playing an equivalent amount of random combosnations does lead to better
results, as proven in my scientific research:

"Lotto Wheels, Reduced Lotto Systems: The Myth of Lottery"
http://saliu.com/bbs/messages/11.html

It doesn't mean that playing random combinations assure bigger lotto
winnings. It simply means that playing random lotto combosnations leads to
LOWER LOSSES, as compared to playing lotto wheels. Playing lotto wheels
leads to HIGHER LOSSES because the wheels optimize lower prizes while
decreasing the chances for higher prizes.

Parpaluck
.........................................................................

Below is a nine number 'Banker-one' wheel in 56 combinations..

The nine numbers wheeled are.. 04 07 14 19 24 *31* 38 45 47

The 'banker' is number *31* and that number appears in each of the 56
combinations.

Guarantee: match the 'banker' number (31) plus any other five numbers from
the remaining eight numbers to guarantee a *Jackpot* win in any 6/49 draw.
All winning tiers are possible.

01) 04 07 14 19 24 31
02) 04 07 14 19 31 38
03) 04 07 14 19 31 45
04) 04 07 14 19 31 47
05) 04 07 14 24 31 38
06) 04 07 14 24 31 45
07) 04 07 14 24 31 47
08) 04 07 14 31 38 45
09) 04 07 14 31 38 47
10) 04 07 14 31 45 47
11) 04 07 19 24 31 38
12) 04 07 19 24 31 45
13) 04 07 19 24 31 47
14) 04 07 19 31 38 45
15) 04 07 19 31 38 47
16) 04 07 19 31 45 47
17) 04 07 24 31 38 45
18) 04 07 24 31 38 47
19) 04 07 24 31 45 47
20) 04 07 31 38 45 47
21) 04 14 19 24 31 38
22) 04 14 19 24 31 45
23) 04 14 19 24 31 47
24) 04 14 19 31 38 45
25) 04 14 19 31 38 47
26) 04 14 19 31 45 47
27) 04 14 24 31 38 45
28) 04 14 24 31 38 47
29) 04 14 24 31 45 47
30) 04 14 31 38 45 47
31) 04 19 24 31 38 45
32) 04 19 24 31 38 47
33) 04 19 24 31 45 47
34) 04 19 31 38 45 47
35) 04 24 31 38 45 47
36) 07 14 19 24 31 38
37) 07 14 19 24 31 45
38) 07 14 19 24 31 47
39) 07 14 19 31 38 45
40) 07 14 19 31 38 47
41) 07 14 19 31 45 47
42) 07 14 24 31 38 45
43) 07 14 24 31 38 47
44) 07 14 24 31 45 47
45) 07 14 31 38 45 47
46) 07 19 24 31 38 45
47) 07 19 24 31 38 47
48) 07 19 24 31 45 47
49) 07 19 31 38 45 47
50) 07 24 31 38 45 47
51) 14 19 24 31 38 45
52) 14 19 24 31 38 47
53) 14 19 24 31 45 47
54) 14 19 31 38 45 47
55) 14 24 31 38 45 47
56) 19 24 31 38 45 47

Would you Peskyduck (or anyone else here) care to put up and post 56 random
combinations and pit them against my nine-number 56 combination wheel,
above?

If so, the challenge would be for six months in the UK Wednesday and
Saturday 6/49 draws, commencing say, this coming Saturday 19th October.

Anyone?

[Parpaluck]

Koochew:

We sense you are in pain, as if an 18-wheeler drove over you on the road! BRRRRRRRRAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

Your lotto wheel is cuckoo play, really. You take a banker and play 8 lotto numbers only. That’s way too tight of a strategy! You will LOSE MORE over any range of lottery drawings.

I checked your “banker wheel” over 100 drawings in Pennsylvania Lottery. I also ran that great piece of lottery software named SkipSystem.exe:

http://saliu.com/skip-strategy.html
(“Lotto, Lottery, Powerball, Mega Millions, Euromillions, Horse Racing, Roulette, Football: Software for Systems Derived from Skips”)


One of the FFG systems had a string consisting of 12 lotto numbers (a 6-49 game). I went back 100 drawings as to avoid curve fitting. I wheeled those 12 numbers applying my famed combinatorics method. The result: 6 lotto combosnations with the ‘4 of 6’ minimum guarantee:

http://saliu.com/lottowheel.html
(“Create Lotto Wheels, Lottery Systems Manually or in Lotto Wheeling Software”)

I used the lotto numbers in the order saved by SkipSystem.exe. Randomizing (shuffling) the numbers leads to better results, more often than not.

15 18 19 - 20 24 25 - 27 33 35 - 37 41 48

15 18 19 20 24 25
15 18 19 27 33 35
15 18 19 37 41 48
20 24 25 27 33 35
20 24 25 37 41 48
27 33 35 37 41 48

File name: WheelFFG12.46

Your lotto wheel (code-named WheelKoochew9.56) is right there, in your post.


I checked both wheels in that great piece of lottery software Winners.exe.

LOTTO-6 Winning Number Checking - With 3-hits
Files: WHEELKOOCHEW9.56 ( 56 ) against > PA-6 ( 100 )
Date: 10-16-2013

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Line Combinations 6 5 4 3
no. Checked Hits Hits Hits Hits
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 4 7 14 19 24 31 in draw # 73
1 4 7 14 19 24 31 in draw # 86
2 4 7 14 19 31 38 in draw # 73
2 4 7 14 19 31 38 in draw # 91
3 4 7 14 19 31 45 in draw # 73
4 4 7 14 19 31 47 in draw # 32
4 4 7 14 19 31 47 in draw # 73
5 4 7 14 24 31 38 in draw # 73
7 4 7 14 24 31 47 in draw # 32
8 4 7 14 31 38 45 in draw # 73
9 4 7 14 31 38 47 in draw # 6
9 4 7 14 31 38 47 in draw # 32
9 4 7 14 31 38 47 in draw # 73
10 4 7 14 31 45 47 in draw # 32
10 4 7 14 31 45 47 in draw # 48
11 4 7 19 24 31 38 in draw # 73
11 4 7 19 24 31 38 in draw # 86
12 4 7 19 24 31 45 in draw # 73
12 4 7 19 24 31 45 in draw # 86
13 4 7 19 24 31 47 in draw # 32
13 4 7 19 24 31 47 in draw # 73
13 4 7 19 24 31 47 in draw # 86
14 4 7 19 31 38 45 in draw # 13
14 4 7 19 31 38 45 in draw # 73
15 4 7 19 31 38 47 in draw # 6
15 4 7 19 31 38 47 in draw # 32
15 4 7 19 31 38 47 in draw # 73
16 4 7 19 31 45 47 in draw # 32
16 4 7 19 31 45 47 in draw # 73
17 4 7 24 31 38 45 in draw # 73
18 4 7 24 31 38 47 in draw # 6
18 4 7 24 31 38 47 in draw # 32
18 4 7 24 31 38 47 in draw # 73
19 4 7 24 31 45 47 in draw # 32
20 4 7 31 38 45 47 in draw # 6
20 4 7 31 38 45 47 in draw # 32
20 4 7 31 38 45 47 in draw # 73
21 4 14 19 24 31 38 in draw # 73
21 4 14 19 24 31 38 in draw # 86
21 4 14 19 24 31 38 in draw # 91
22 4 14 19 24 31 45 in draw # 86
23 4 14 19 24 31 47 in draw # 86
24 4 14 19 31 38 45 in draw # 13
24 4 14 19 31 38 45 in draw # 73
24 4 14 19 31 38 45 in draw # 91
25 4 14 19 31 38 47 in draw # 6
25 4 14 19 31 38 47 in draw # 73
25 4 14 19 31 38 47 in draw # 91
26 4 14 19 31 45 47 in draw # 48
28 4 14 24 31 38 47 in draw # 6
29 4 14 24 31 45 47 in draw # 48
30 4 14 31 38 45 47 in draw # 6
30 4 14 31 38 45 47 in draw # 48
31 4 19 24 31 38 45 in draw # 13
31 4 19 24 31 38 45 in draw # 73
31 4 19 24 31 38 45 in draw # 86
32 4 19 24 31 38 47 in draw # 6
32 4 19 24 31 38 47 in draw # 73
32 4 19 24 31 38 47 in draw # 86
33 4 19 24 31 45 47 in draw # 86
34 4 19 31 38 45 47 in draw # 6
34 4 19 31 38 45 47 in draw # 13
34 4 19 31 38 45 47 in draw # 73
35 4 24 31 38 45 47 in draw # 6
36 7 14 19 24 31 38 in draw # 73
36 7 14 19 24 31 38 in draw # 91
37 7 14 19 24 31 45 in draw # 73
38 7 14 19 24 31 47 in draw # 32
38 7 14 19 24 31 47 in draw # 73
39 7 14 19 31 38 45 in draw # 13
39 7 14 19 31 38 45 in draw # 73
39 7 14 19 31 38 45 in draw # 91
40 7 14 19 31 38 47 in draw # 32
40 7 14 19 31 38 47 in draw # 73
40 7 14 19 31 38 47 in draw # 91
41 7 14 19 31 45 47 in draw # 32
41 7 14 19 31 45 47 in draw # 48
41 7 14 19 31 45 47 in draw # 73
42 7 14 24 31 38 45 in draw # 73
43 7 14 24 31 38 47 in draw # 32
43 7 14 24 31 38 47 in draw # 73
44 7 14 24 31 45 47 in draw # 32
44 7 14 24 31 45 47 in draw # 48
45 7 14 31 38 45 47 in draw # 32
45 7 14 31 38 45 47 in draw # 48
45 7 14 31 38 45 47 in draw # 73
46 7 19 24 31 38 45 in draw # 13
46 7 19 24 31 38 45 in draw # 73
47 7 19 24 31 38 47 in draw # 32
47 7 19 24 31 38 47 in draw # 73
48 7 19 24 31 45 47 in draw # 32
48 7 19 24 31 45 47 in draw # 73
49 7 19 31 38 45 47 in draw # 13
49 7 19 31 38 45 47 in draw # 32
49 7 19 31 38 45 47 in draw # 73
50 7 24 31 38 45 47 in draw # 32
50 7 24 31 38 45 47 in draw # 73
51 14 19 24 31 38 45 in draw # 13
51 14 19 24 31 38 45 in draw # 73
51 14 19 24 31 38 45 in draw # 91
52 14 19 24 31 38 47 in draw # 73
52 14 19 24 31 38 47 in draw # 91
53 14 19 24 31 45 47 in draw # 48
54 14 19 31 38 45 47 in draw # 13
54 14 19 31 38 45 47 in draw # 48
54 14 19 31 38 45 47 in draw # 73
54 14 19 31 38 45 47 in draw # 91
55 14 24 31 38 45 47 in draw # 48
56 19 24 31 38 45 47 in draw # 13
56 19 24 31 38 45 47 in draw # 73
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Hits: 0 0 10 100

Total cost: 56 * 100 = 5600 units
Total wins: (10 * 100) + (100 * 10) = 1000 + 1000 = 2000
Net LOSS: 5600 – 2000 = 3600.


LOTTO-6 Winning Number Checking - With 3-hits
Files: WHEELFFG12.46 ( 6 ) against > PA-6 ( 100 )
Date: 10-16-2013

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Line Combinations 6 5 4 3
no. Checked Hits Hits Hits Hits
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 15 18 19 20 24 25 in draw # 1
1 15 18 19 20 24 25 in draw # 81
1 15 18 19 20 24 25 in draw # 87
1 15 18 19 20 24 25 in draw # 96
1 15 18 19 20 24 25 in draw # 100
2 15 18 19 27 33 35 in draw # 87
3 15 18 19 37 41 48 in draw # 4
3 15 18 19 37 41 48 in draw # 35
3 15 18 19 37 41 48 in draw # 87
4 20 24 25 27 33 35 in draw # 21
4 20 24 25 27 33 35 in draw # 100
5 20 24 25 37 41 48 in draw # 56
5 20 24 25 37 41 48 in draw # 100
6 27 33 35 37 41 48 in draw # 25
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Hits: 0 0 1 13

Total cost: 6 * 100 = 600 units
Total wins: (1 * 100) + (13 * 10) = 230
Net LOSS: 600 – 230 = 370.


So, playing your “bunker wheel” led to almost 10 times bigger LOSSES, compared to my 12-number lotto wheel! So much for the Kokostirk-Koochew “winning” lotto wheeling!!!


Best of luck, axio (avoid the 18-wheeler)!

Parpaluck

[Nick UK]

"Peskyduck" wrote..

<with big snips for brevity>

So, playing your �bunker wheel� led to almost 10 times bigger LOSSES,
compared to my 12-number lotto wheel! So much for the Kokostirk-Koochew
�winning� lotto wheeling!!!

Best of luck, axio (avoid the 18-wheeler)!

...................................................................

Well, you've certainly been busy with my 54 com wheel, Peskyduck!

Of course what you misread in my post, or what you've forgotten is this..

I asked you (or anyone else here) to post 54 random combinations and pit
them against my 54 com wheel for the *next* 6 months, not the *past* 6
months, or the past 100 draws, or however many past draws you checked!

Like on the Stock Exchange and as any Financial Adviser will 'advise'..

*past* results are *not* necessarily a guide to *future* results!

Surely even *you* must know that, eh Peskyduck?
............................................................................

Ps: and it's not.. BRRRRRRRRAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

It's.. Bw..ahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!..

Has been for years in this ng.. (incidentally, originated by Shane
McDermott)

Gerrit Peskyduck?..

Bw..ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!

[Parpaluck]

On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 12:29:29 PM UTC-4, Nick UK Koochew wrote:
>
> Well, you've certainly been busy with my 54 com wheel, Peskyduck!
>
>
>
> Of course what you misread in my post, or what you've forgotten is this..
>
>
>
> I asked you (or anyone else here) to post 54 random combinations and pit
>
> them against my 54 com wheel for the *next* 6 months, not the *past* 6
>
> months, or the past 100 draws, or however many past draws you checked!
>
>
>
> Like on the Stock Exchange and as any Financial Adviser will 'advise'..
>
>
>
> *past* results are *not* necessarily a guide to *future* results!
>
>
>
> Surely even *you* must know that, eh Peskyduck?
>
> ............................................................................
>
>
>
> Ps: and it's not.. BRRRRRRRRAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!
>
>
>
> It's.. Bw..ahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!..
>
>
>
> Has been for years in this ng.. (incidentally, originated by Shane
>
> McDermott)
>
>
>
> Gerrit Peskyduck?..
>
>
>
> Bw..ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!

BRRRRRRRRAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! Looks like really an 18-wheeler drove over you on a muddy road, Koochew!

To avoid ‘curve fitting’, you go back in the lottery drawing file; say, 100 drawings. Save the new file as, say, Data-2. After you create a, say, skip system, or a Koko-Koochew lotto wheel, you want to check how the combosnations would fare in the “future”. Those 100 drawings you deleted in the Data-1 file will act as “future” drawings.

That’s how you check the performance of any lottery strategies. It only takes minutes (with great lottery software), while you waste hours and hours and hours. Only fools such as those at lottery post — and you with your lottery syndicate buds — would wait 9 months for the baby to be born, then throw it away with the bathwater!!! BRRRRRRRRAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

Them fools start with things like: “Add 123 to the number of today, then deduct PI from it and multiply the result by PHI. Check for a blue moon and see what happens…”

Real testing is properly done as I showed you above. You don’t have to wait for the baby for months. You can check right now thousands of lottery drawings in dozens of games worldwide. People would save time, while I’ll save money as well. You’ll lose 10 times more money and spend effort than me — 6 tickets means about 10 times less effort for me than filling out 56 lotto combosnations on paper…

BRRRRRRRRAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

“Koochew watchdog of ldir
Always licks his elder
Koochew called himself True Brit
His master calls him True Shit!”

BRRRRRRRRAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

[Parpaluck]

On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 12:29:29 PM UTC-4, Nick UK wrote:
>
> Well, you've certainly been busy with my 54 com wheel, Peskyduck!
>
> Of course what you misread in my post, or what you've forgotten is this..
>
> I asked you (or anyone else here) to post 54 random combinations
>

> It's.. Bw..ahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!..
>
>
>
> Has been for years in this ng.. (incidentally, originated by Shane
>
> McDermott)
>
>
>
> Gerrit Peskyduck?..
>
>
>
> Bw..ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!

Koochew wrote:

“56) 19 24 31 38 45 47 “

You play 8 lotto numbers, taken 5 at a time:

C(8, 5) = (8*7*6*5*4) / (1*2*3*4*5) = (8*7) / 1 = 56.

Then, the syndicate try-hard-cheater adds a funcker to each combonation to make it a 6-number lotto play. And, in the end, the syndicate saves money as 56 = 54…

BRRRRRRRRAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

[Nick UK]

"Parpaluck" wrote
< snip most of it >

To avoid ‘curve fitting’, you go back in the lottery drawing file; say, 100
drawings. Save the new file as, say, Data-2. After you create a, say, skip
system, or a Koko-Koochew lotto wheel, you want to check how the
combosnations would fare in the “future”. Those 100 drawings you deleted in
the Data-1 file will act as “future” drawings.

.................................................................

Well Peskyduck,

No need for all that information overload.

You checked back on past results in some US Lottery draw!

Well I did likewise in the UK 6/439 draw with a short retrospective check,
going back over the recent draw history and below is what I found..

> The nine numbers I wheeled are.. 04 07 14 19 24 *31* 38 45 47

> The 'banker' is number *31* and that number appears in each of the 56
> combinations.

55) 14 24 31 38 45 47

56) 19 24 31 38 45 47

Three retrospective draw results I checked..

UK Draw 1285 result.. 04 10 14 29 31 38 (43)
My wheel won £520 for 10 x 4 hits plus £180 for 18 x 3 hits
(total wins for draw 1285 is £700)

UK Draw 1140 result.. 04 07 31 38 44 48 (01)
My wheel won £530 for 10 x 4 hits plus £290 for 29 x 3 hits
(total wins for draw 1140 is £820)

UK Draw 1139 result 14 15 24 31 45 49 (34)
My wheel won £930 for 10 x 4 hits plus £310 for 31 x 3 hits
(total wins for draw 1139 is £1240)

Note the good returns in two *consecutive* draws.. 1140 and 1139

The above is only a tiny sample of retrospective results from my wheel and I
assure you there are many similar draws showing multiple '4' and many
hundreds of '3' wins, using the above wheeled combinations. You don't
believe me Peskyduck? Well the combinations are there - check them out, that
is if you can handle the truth and the pain!

Retrospectively, there was no 'match 5' or 'match 6' wins in my 56 com
wheel.

No good moaning Peskyduck: *you* checked past results and I did likewise..
is that okay with you?

You could have posted 56 random combinations for *future* comparison but you
chose not to: care to explain why?

Unless you hit on a '5' or a '6' there is no way any 56 *random*
combinations of yours could possibly achieve results anything like the three
above.

With 56 random coms, you will average *one* match 3 win per draw.. and you
know it!

Listen up you Lotto players.. forget random coms and useless mathematics
trying to prove a useless point - Wheeling is best!

Duh! Peskyduck! Will you never learn! It's *not* BRRRRRRRRAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

It's Bw..ahahahahahahahahahahaha!!

Gerrit!..
Bw..ahahahahahahahahahahaha!!

[Colin Fairbrother]

Using the same meaningles logic playing the last 56 draw results or Random Selections against the last 56 draws would give a first prize win every draw and prove nothing.

The 56 lines offered by Nick the Thick using only 9 integers from the 49 available has a calculatable chance of success of a CombThree prize (use CoverMaster) of less than 7% and for a CombFour less than 1%. Compare this to 56 Random Selection Lines where the chance of a CombThree prize per draw is 70% and that of a CombFour is over 5%.

Simply put the chances of any prize per draw are about 7% for Nick the Thick's lines whereas 56 Random Selection lines give abouta 76% chance of success.

LOTTO WHEELS OR COVERS CON-ARTIST CLAIMS
TOTALLY DEBUNKED IN TABLE
http://www.colinfairbrother.com/UsingLesserPoolCoversInLotto.aspx

Colin Fairbrother

[Nick UK]

Bawlin' Colin wrote..

Using the same meaningles logic playing the last 56 draw results or Random
Selections against the last 56 draws would give a first prize win every draw
and prove nothing.

The 56 lines offered by Nick the Thick using only 9 integers from the 49
available has a calculatable chance of success of a CombThree prize (use
CoverMaster) of less than 7% and for a CombFour less than 1%. Compare this
to 56 Random Selection Lines where the chance of a CombThree prize per draw
is 70% and that of a CombFour is over 5%.

Simply put the chances of any prize per draw are about 7% for Nick the
Thick's lines whereas 56 Random Selection lines give abouta 76% chance of
success.

LOTTO WHEELS OR COVERS CON-ARTIST CLAIMS
TOTALLY DEBUNKED IN TABLE

Colin Fairbrother
........................................................................

Your problem is this, Colin..

In your ever-so-boring, never-ending articles, you naturally assume that
everyone on the planet (apart from you) is a 'con-artist'!

Let's get one thing straight: I have no commercial interest in any lottery.
I am a guy who subscribes to this ng and (like most players) wouldn't mind
winning a lottery JP.

Now listen up, git..

I AM *NOT* A CON-ARTIST! IF YOU WANT RESPONSES TO YOUR POSTS THEN KEEP YOUR
UNECESSARY PERSONAL FKN INSULTS OUT OF RGL POSTS -

GERRIT?

You constantly give mathematical reasons and pointless percentages why
'random' is better than 'wheeling' and accuse folks who prefer wheeling as
'con-artists'.. FFS!!

Okay Bawlin' Colin! Let's see you post 56 truly random combinations here and
pit them against my 56 wheeled coms for the next 100 UK 6/49 draws (or as
many draws as you prefer) and let's see the result.

I predict..

YOU WILL LOSE!

[Colin Fairbrother]

I just did Oh Thick One - the last 56 UK National draws. Think about it for an hour or so and the light bulb should come on - albeit ever so dimly.

As for the rest of it - only a conceited idiot like you thinks anybody gives a shit about what you pretend to think. The irony is the Lotto idiot Joe Roberts that you pine for was a believer in testing any set against all the possibilities.

The problem is there is no substance to you whatsoever and in this newsgroup never has been. You're simply a drama queen hag that loves to throw hysterical fits while blatently looking to see if anyone is looking.

If you read the posts in Google Groups then you will see that
Professor Iliya Bluskov promotes deceitful claims for Lotto Covers or Wheels
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.gambling.lottery/TVhINzsP0hI
has 871 views. Nothing you've written has even come close.

In other words petty little con-artist, Nick the Thick, they deservedly ignore you.

[Nick UK]

Bawlin Colin wrote..

................................................

[Nick UK]

"Colin Fairbrother" wrote in message
news:7c969724-cd1f-434a...@googlegroups.com...

I just did Oh Thick One - the last 56 UK National draws. Think about it for
an hour or so and the light bulb should come on - albeit ever so dimly.

.........................................................................................

You say.. "you just did" meaning you've been checking my 56 coms in recent
UK 6/49 results!

Well, why didn't you mention the fact that in the UK 6/49 recent draw (no.
1846) Sat 31 Aug 2013 result.. 04 14 15 17 21 31 (48) my wheel achieved 20
'match 3' wins and at £25 per win, that comes to £500.. eh Colin?

Also: why didn't you mention recent draw number 1849 (Wed 11th Sept 2013)
with another 20 'match 3 wins, totalling £500

Also: why didn't you mention recent draw number 1846 (Sat 31st Aug 2013)
with another 20 'match 3 wins, totalling £500

Also: why didn't you mention recent draw number 1828 (Sat 29th June 2013)
with another 20 'match 3 wins, totalling £500

That's £2,000 gained by my 56 *wheeled* combinations - that is, in four
*recent* UK 6/49 draws Colin!

And what would your 56 *random* coms have achieved? I'll tell what..
probably *one* match 3 win in each of those aforementioned four draws, that
is.. if you're lucky!

So much for your mathematical percentages Colin!.. in other words..
nonsensical (hopeful) mathematical garbage!

You wrote..

> The problem is there is no substance to you whatsoever
> and in this newsgroup never has been. You're simply a
> drama queen hag that loves to throw hysterical fits while
> blatently looking to see if anyone is looking.

Yep, nobody was looking.. except *YOU* .. *YOU'RE* looking! Eh Colin?

AGAIN..

> Let's see you post 56 truly random combinations here and pit them against
> my 56 wheeled coms for the next 100 UK 6/49 draws (or as many draws as you
> prefer) and let's see the result.
>
> I predict..
>
> YOU WILL LOSE!

Ps: you spelt blatantly wrong!
Tut-tut Colin, not like the you.. Mr.Perfect!

[Colin Fairbrother]

To test in CoverMaster Nick the Thick's pathetic effort you need to transpose the integers which I have done below: -

01 02 03 04 05 06
01 02 03 04 06 07
01 02 03 04 06 08
01 02 03 04 06 09
01 02 03 05 06 07
01 02 03 05 06 08
01 02 03 05 06 09
01 02 03 06 07 08
01 02 03 06 07 09
01 02 03 06 08 09
01 02 04 05 06 07
01 02 04 05 06 08
01 02 04 05 06 09
01 02 04 06 07 08
01 02 04 06 07 09
01 02 04 06 08 09
01 02 05 06 07 08
01 02 05 06 07 09
01 02 05 06 08 09
01 02 06 07 08 09
01 03 04 05 06 07
01 03 04 05 06 08
01 03 04 05 06 09
01 03 04 06 07 08
01 03 04 06 07 09
01 03 04 06 08 09
01 03 05 06 07 08
01 03 05 06 07 09
01 03 05 06 08 09
01 03 06 07 08 09
01 04 05 06 07 08
01 04 05 06 07 09
01 04 05 06 08 09
01 04 06 07 08 09
01 05 06 07 08 09
02 03 04 05 06 07
02 03 04 05 06 08
02 03 04 05 06 09
02 03 04 06 07 08
02 03 04 06 07 09
02 03 04 06 08 09
02 03 05 06 07 08
02 03 05 06 07 09
02 03 05 06 08 09
02 03 06 07 08 09
02 04 05 06 07 08
02 04 05 06 07 09
02 04 05 06 08 09
02 04 06 07 08 09
02 05 06 07 08 09
03 04 05 06 07 08
03 04 05 06 07 09
03 04 05 06 08 09
03 04 06 07 08 09
03 05 06 07 08 09
04 05 06 07 08 09

Only 9 of the possible 49 integers are used.

Keeping the CombThree's unique would give 56 x 20 = 1,120 working for you and for Random Selections you would have most of these.

For Nick the Thick's feeble effort you have 56 CombThrees repeated 10 times and 28 repeated 20 times - so, there is only 84 working for you. You have 70 CombFours repeated 4 times and 56 repeated 10 times to give only 126 working for you instead of the optimum 840. You even have 70 CombFives repeated 4 times which means only 126 are working for you instead of the optimum 336.

Paste the set into Covermaster and change the Pool to 49 and click on test and you will find the coverage is less than 7% ie every draw there is a 93% chance you will get nothing. Compare this to 56 Random selections where the Coverage will be around 70%.

Playing 56 Random Lines over 56 Draws gives 3136 plays : -

Chances of a CombThree are 1:56.65 so we should get about 55.
Chances of a CombFour are 1:1032.4 so we should get about 3.
Chances of a CombFive are 1:54,200 so pure luck if we get one as with a CombSix.

There is no chance of converting the Lotto Idiots but now and then there is a public duty to expose their idiocy and lies.

Colin Fairbrother
http://colinfairbrother.com/

[Colin Fairbrother]

One should also point out that he is so thick that he doesn't realize we are a wakeup to his con-artistry in concocting a set to give wins after the draws have been held. Has he done this before - sure, see: -
BEST JACKPOT LOTTO GAME IN THE WORLD
http://lottoposter.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=640&FID=91&PR=3

Colin Fairbrother

[Nick UK]

Bawlin' Colin bawled..

...............................................................................

Of course, you failed to point out that it was *you* and the other pesky
contributor to this thread who decided to go back to previous draws!

I picked nine numbers from 49 with one banker number and wheeled them into
56 combinations for *future* UK 6/49 draws, not past draws!

It is *you* who is the con-artist and a real fkn bore, with countless Lotto
Poster links that would drive ordinary everyday folks to despair!

Stuff your mumbo-jumbo maths, your continual droning on and on and stuff
your pointless percentages!

Again..

> Let's see you post 56 truly random combinations here and pit them against
> my 56 wheeled coms for the next 100 UK 6/49 draws (or as many draws as you
> prefer) and let's see the result.
>
> I predict..
>
> YOU WILL LOSE!

Post your 56 coms here Mr.Perfect and let's see how much of a lottery
'expert' you truly are!

Alternatively, shut the fk up!

[Colin Fairbrother]

Last 56 UK Lotto Draws or Random Selections of 6 Numbers from 49
12 15 24 26 31 35
05 12 21 26 33 45
04 11 27 34 36 45
05 15 17 19 20 47
16 17 21 27 30 37
10 12 14 25 46 48
05 07 20 24 30 41
11 15 36 37 38 45
02 04 05 17 22 29
18 20 24 30 39 48
07 24 27 31 40 41
01 11 12 13 35 42
06 07 08 13 24 28
04 14 15 17 21 31
01 05 17 19 37 47
05 20 26 40 42 48
03 04 27 29 47 49
15 25 26 33 34 41
12 18 38 39 45 49
14 15 17 26 35 46
03 16 20 26 28 43
03 05 09 13 17 37
10 16 33 38 40 44
12 13 18 39 43 49
22 26 30 40 42 47
01 03 17 19 39 42
06 24 33 38 42 43
12 15 24 36 45 49
03 09 10 16 20 22
16 24 27 39 45 49
15 27 31 40 41 49
07 13 25 31 34 45
08 11 29 34 40 41
08 24 26 28 36 43
06 09 13 35 36 47
03 04 16 20 33 44
02 07 10 15 17 28
08 09 13 17 41 43
10 18 35 38 41 43
11 13 24 32 34 47
03 05 25 33 34 35
05 06 26 30 33 40
10 23 35 39 45 46
03 05 24 31 48 49
04 05 06 20 30 35
09 12 24 25 26 43
12 15 20 31 33 40
11 12 22 27 40 44
07 08 11 12 39 42
01 13 25 39 41 44
09 11 16 17 18 38
08 34 38 42 44 46
12 14 16 18 20 33
03 13 23 27 41 49
03 16 27 33 36 42
11 21 22 41 47 48

Coverage 3if6 is 63.8%

[Parpaluck]

On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 7:51:02 PM UTC-4, Nick UK Koochew wrote:
>
> Three retrospective draw results I checked..
>
> UK Draw 1285 result.. 04 10 14 29 31 38 (43)
>
> My wheel won £520 for 10 x 4 hits plus £180 for 18 x 3 hits
>

“You don't believe me”.

No, I don’t, Koochew! I don’t believe any syndicate guy, because they all are cheaters. Playing 7–8–9 numbers is their favorite scheme. It is easy to generate the combosnations by hand and then play the “lotto wheels” for months and months and moths…

Of course your “Koko-Koochew lotto wheel” gives good results in the PAST 10-100 drawings in the UK Lottery. You SELECTED your syndicate numbers based on number frequencies in the UK Lottery!

You fight hard against the idea of such lottery strategies (e.g. based on recent frequency). Yet, you now advocate the legitimacy of such strategies. As you can see, Psycholin Zamzalasheep is more consistent than you are. He keeps his insanity spine straight: He analyzes the performance only based on total number of combinations!

Again, your lottery strategy (e.g. lotto wheel) is based on the drawings in the UK Lottery. Your wheel will perform better in that environment as opposed to other lotto games. Just check it out in lotto games worldwide.

Bottom line: You will lose 10 times more money than people playing the 6-line, 12-number lotto wheel. GUARANTEED! Your syndicate members didn’t know that. But, no matter what, the syndicate organizer always wins — the members pay him fees. BRRRRRRRRAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!


People can get free lotto wheels and wheeling software:

http://saliu.com/lotto_wheels.html

http://saliu.com/bbs/messages/857.html
(“Lotto Wheeling Software: Fill Lottery Wheels with Player's Lotto Picks”)

Best of luck, axiomatics!

Ion Saliu

[Nick UK]

<comments embedded below>

Peskyduck prattled on with..

>
> No, I don’t, Koochew! I don’t believe any syndicate guy, because they
> all are cheaters. Playing 7–8–9 numbers is their favorite scheme.
> It is easy to generate the combosnations by hand and then play
> the “lotto wheels” for months and months and moths…
>

Yet another *proven* RGL asshole! Making false accusations without a shred
of evidence! And for your information, asshole, I do *not* operate any
lottery syndicate!

Nor did I generate my 56 com wheel by hand, asshole! FYI, I used Joe
Roberts' Lottery Director software.

>
> Of course your “Koko-Koochew lotto wheel” gives good results in
> the PAST 10-100 drawings in the UK Lottery. You SELECTED your
> syndicate numbers based on number frequencies in the UK Lottery!
>

Duh! So now you wanna dictate which nine numbers I choose for my wheel! FFS!
Makes no difference to you or anyone how I choose my numbers or what
strategy I use.

It's a Lottery asshole, and all past draws are irrelevant and cannot
possibly affect future draws!

>
> You fight hard against the idea of such lottery strategies
> (e.g. based on recent frequency). Yet, you now advocate the legitimacy
> of such strategies.

Duh! FFS! There is nothing illegitimate about a simple Lottery Wheel and any
strategy used to create that wheel! Are you right in the fkn head?

> As you can see, Psycholin Zamzalasheep is more consistent than you are.
> He keeps his insanity spine straight: He analyzes the performance only
> based on total number of combinations!
>

I couldn't give a monkey's fk what that other false-accusing asshole Bawlin'
Colin does, says or thinks!

>
> Again, your lottery strategy (e.g. lotto wheel) is based on the drawings
> in the UK Lottery. Your wheel will perform better in that environment as
> opposed to other lotto games. Just check it out in lotto games worldwide.
>

Now why the fk would I want to check my wheel Worldwide? I am only
interested in the UK Lottery and you may be wondering why? My RGL
subscriber name 'Nick UK' might possibly give you a clue.

> Bottom line: You will lose 10 times more money than people playing the
> 6-line, 12-number lotto wheel. GUARANTEED!

Forget pointless percentages! Prove it with *future* draw results! Post
your 56 random coms here: put your combinations where your big fat mouth is!

>
> People can get free lotto wheels and wheeling software:
>

> Ion Saliu
>
Stuff your lotto wheels, stuff your wheeling software and stuff you too!

[Parpaluck]

On Thursday, October 17, 2013 1:04:07 PM UTC-4, Nick UK Koochew wrote:
> <comments embedded below>

Koochew:

An 18-wheeler did hit you on a muddy road!

“I do *not* operate any lottery syndicate!” You don’t… nevermore? Even the idiots around you got smart…BRRRRRRRRAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

What’s next, then? Threaten with lawsuit? BRRRRRRRRAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!
The likes of you do that as a form of begging… BRRRRRRRRAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

“Nor did I generate my 56 com wheel by hand, asshole! FYI, I used Joe
Roberts' Lottery Director ldir software.”
BRRRRRRRRAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! That is:
Oxymoron of the month of Shocktober! Joe Roberts Kokostirk lottery software!

“Koochew, the dog of ldir,
Always licks his elder.

[Nick UK]

For reasons best known to himself, Conman Bawlin' Colin copied, pasted and
posted the past 56 UK draws here, showing the actual result of each draw!

Duh! Pointless fkn post!

Now how's about trying to register with Bawlin' Colin's 'Lotto Poster'
forum! Anyone stoopid enough to try, will be met with the following..

New registrations are welcome and are now done manually. Spammers and trolls
are not welcome. Send your details to fair...@bigpond.com including valid
email address from your ISP.

I wonder what bawlin' Colin now charges forum members? If I remember
correctly, I think he used to charge his forum members 5 Oz dollars per
annum. Anyone who declined payment was met with something like..

'If you can't afford 5 dollars a year to be a member of Lotto Poster then
sod off, you're not welcome here'!

Note: *Spammers and trolls are not welcome*!!

Duh! That statement coming from one of the most persistent Trolls
on Google Usenet!

Aw! The fkn irony!

Bw..ahahahahahahahahahahaha!!

[Marmaduke Jinks]

"Nick UK" <lott...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:l3pbka$2iq$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

>
>
> For reasons best known to himself, Conman Bawlin' Colin copied, pasted and
> posted the past 56 UK draws here, showing the actual result of each draw!
>

Nice one Nick.

MJ

[Parpaluck]

On Thursday, October 17, 2013 2:50:54 PM UTC-4, Nick UK Koochew wrote:
>
> Bw..ahahahahahahahahahahaha!!

Only the insane sadists at Micro$oft are more insane than you, Koochew. Only “Windows 8.1” beats your “Wheel-8+1” crap… BRRRRRRRRAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!


Axiomatic ones, learn from my experience upgrading to Windows 8.1:
https://www.facebook.com/Parpaluck

[Colin Fairbrother]

All the posturing, insults etc from Nick the Thick contending that a pathetic little 56 line Lotto wheel based on using only 9 integers of the 49 available and only a miserly 7% 3if6 coverage will do better than a 56 line set of random selections, in this case the previous 56 UK draws, with a 64% 3if6 coverage - but he knows the percentages don't lie - he will lose bar some extraordinary good luck.

A 56 line set or partial cover with no repeat combthrees, using all 49 integers and maximised coverage gives a 76% 3if6 coverage and is the better way to go as at
http://www.lottotowin.com

The results will be posted - he knows he is going to lose and based on past performance he will now disappear for a while.

Colin fairbrother

[nigel]

Nick UK wrote:
>
> Duh! So now you wanna dictate which nine numbers I choose for my wheel! FFS!
> Makes no difference to you or anyone how I choose my numbers or what
> strategy I use.

I think it does.

If you choose random numbers, you're not a professional gambler and you
can only be playing for reasons like fun or addiction.

Professional gamblers understand volatility and will always choose a
small pool of numbers rather than the complete set. However professional
gamblers rarely play the lottery because they don't know an effective
way to choose a small pool.

Evil Nigel

[Nick UK]

<comments embedded below>

Bawlin' Colin bawled..

> All the posturing, insults etc
>

Lets' hold it right there!
>
*You* (as per usual) started the insults in this thread, like you always do!
I really cannot think of one RGL thread over the years where you have posted
without eventual insults, accusing all who tried to communicate with you, or
those who might disagree with you, of being con-artists!
>
YOU NEVER FAIL!
>
Couple of years ago you accused ex-RGL leader, Robert Perkis of insulting
your Family.. a disgusting lie which was *proved* beyond all doubt! Then to
top it all, you threatened Robert with Legal action! Yep.. pathetic!
>
Are you right in the head Colin? I'm beginning to think you need help! Why
can't you see others' point of view without resorting to insults? Why do you
continually seek confrontation?
>
All I did was post a 56 com nine-number banker-1 wheel in the hope that
someone here would post 56 com random combinations just to see how both
wheels fared over a pre-set number of draws!
>
Who fkn cares which wheel is best, it's not that important - is it?
Obviously to you and that other pesky asshole.. it is!
>
Grow up FFS man!

>
> from Nick the Thick contending that a pathetic little
> 56 line Lotto wheel based on using only 9 integers
> of the 49 available and only a miserly 7% 3if6 coverage
> will do better than a 56 line set of random
> selections, in this case the previous 56 UK draws,
> with a 64% 3if6 coverage -
>

Pathetic eh? Well put up your 56 random coms and see which one of the two is
'pathetic': my prediction is *your* 56 coms will fail miserably. Try it
Colin, what you frightened of - eh?
>
> ..but he knows the percentages don't lie - he will lose bar > some
> extraordinary good luck.
>
Of course percentages don't lie, but to bank on percentages in a 6/49
lottery with near 14 million unique combinations *against* the player, is
absolute folly and without doubt, doomed to failure!
>
As far as percentages go I am 100 per cent confident that over 100, 200 or
more draws, my nine-number wheel will achieve far better results than any 56
com randomly selected by you (the so-called lottery expert) or that other
pesky pest contributing in this thread!

>
> A 56 line set or partial cover with no repeat combthrees,
> using all 49 integers and maximised coverage gives a
> 76% 3if6 coverage and is the better way to go as at
> http://www.lottotowin.com
>

Yeah - yeah - yeah we've heard it all before Colin! Prove it here and now!
>
> The results will be posted - he knows he is going to lose.. .
>
Which results you talking about Colin? You gonna post your miserable 56
random coms using all 49 integers, against my 'pathetic' nine-number
banker-1 wheel? I suggest you ain't got the guts to do that!
>
> ..and based on past performance he will now disappear
> for a while.
>
Wrong again Colin! I'm not going anywhere. You don't get a lot right.. do
you?

[Colin Fairbrother]

We're already seeing the cowardly whimpering from El Thicko but the sword is in the air and shall not fail to split his watermelon clean in two. Mercy is given only to the stoic and brave not shivering wimps.

Of course I could generate 56 Random Combinations and test for coverage programatically until one came up that was closer to 76% coverage but instead I have been totally transparent and nominated the last 56 draws with 64% coverage. The difference between 7% and 64% is still so great as to be comparable to a Bantamweight taking on a Sumo wrestler.

First draw Saturday, 19th October, 2013.

Colin Fairbrother
http://www.ColinFairbrother.com

[Nick UK]

<comments embedded below>

Bawlin' Colin bawled..
>

> We're already seeing the cowardly whimpering from El Thicko
> but the sword is in the air and shall not fail to split his
> watermelon clean in two. Mercy is given only to the stoic
> and brave not shivering wimps.
>

Aha! We've now found RGLs new drama Queen!
>
He's obviously never heard of David and Goliath but of course, bawlin' Colin
is no Goliath, more a blinkered, spoilt brat who simply cannot bear anyone
disagreeing with him! His 'sword-in-the-air' analogy is quite incredible
really and definitely warrants a..
>
Bw..ahahahahahahahahahaha!!
>
Aw FFS!..
>
Bw..ahahahahahahahahahaha!!
>
This guy ain't right in the fkn head!

>
> Of course I could generate 56 Random Combinations and test
> for coverage programatically until one came up that was closer
> to 76% coverage but instead I have been totally transparent
> and nominated the last 56 draws with 64% coverage.
>

Well hurry up then Colin! I know there's a few lurkers here, waiting with
baited breath. Get your 56 coms up to 76% or whatever percentage you want
and post them here!
>
Hang on a moment! Asking your software to produce maximum possible coverage
in percentage terms, does sounds a bit like 'wheeling' to me?
>
You then prattled on with..

>
> The difference between 7% and 64% is still so great as to be
> comparable to a Bantamweight taking on a Sumo wrestler.
>

Hmmmm: I'd definitely back the much faster Bantamweight! A few quick
spinning 'wheels' around your big fat Sumo wrestler, followed by a good hard
kick in the bollocks.. and crash! Down goes the Sumo - contest over! Now
that must be worth another..
>
Bw..ahahahahahahahahahaha!!
>
Incidentally: I understand that when preparing your 'random' coms using all
49 integers, your first and main rule is to ensure there are no repeating
triple-integers appearing in any of your combinations. Well yesterday, you
stupidly posted the last 56 UK 6/49 results. What you failed to note was at
least 25% of the past 56 UK results contained triple-integer repeats: with
one result containing a 'four' integer repeat. What affect does that have on
your beloved 'percentage' rule Colin? Go on boy, tell me.

>
> First draw Saturday, 19th October, 2013.
> Colin Fairbrother
>

The World awaits!
>
Ps: have you informed President Obama and Vladimir Putin yet?
>
Bw..ahahahahahahahahahaha!!

[Nick UK]

Thought I'd post a copy of what I consider one of the best and most
entertaining posts ever received in RGL.

When producing his analogy, I have no doubt that Scott Rudy was giving a
light-hearted comparison between 'wheelers' and 'random' number selectors
and most important, not to be taken too seriously.

However, many a true word was said in jest and after reading Scott's post, I
became 100% a lottery 'Trapper'. What are you?

Enjoy..

Are You A Lotto Hunter or Trapper?
by Scott Rudy

The odd/even statistics are static, they never change, there is no movement,
the movement is in the draw of the numbers and how they land the most often.

What would I study? I study all aspects of the numbers, the most important
thing I feel is, you need to know what the static possibilities are first,
learning all of the static aspects that are possible in 6 numbers being
drawn from a field of 49 numbers ranging from 1 - 49.

Then map the movements and occurrences of the numbers drawn to see what
occurs the most often. Then with the knowledge of the static possibilities
you design a trap to try and capture the numbers when they are drawn.

If you're a trapper and you're going to design a trap, you need to know the
nature of the beast. What are it's habits? What does it do the most? How
does it move? Where does it spend it's time most often? etc.

If you're a hunter, to find what you're looking for you need to know the
nature of the beast. What are it's habits? What does it do the most? How
does it move? Where does it spend it's time most often? etc.

A trapper and a hunter are very similar, they are both after the same thing
but, a trapper designs a trap sets it and waits, a hunter tracks it's prey
upon it's every move. a trapper knows the beast's habits, where it lives and
where it moves to most often and designs a trap to place in it's path.

A hunter knows the beasts habits, how it moves and the area it lives in the
most often. Then the hunter tracks his prey and when he's in range, he takes
aim and shoots at his target on it's next move.

To trap numbers you need to know where they go the most often and with this
knowledge you choose a set of numbers based on your trap design that are
most likely to move together and you place them in combinations based on
your trap design.

Once the trap is built and placed in the best spot based on the habits of
the drawing's movements, you leave it in place and do not change it for an
extended period of time, waiting for the numbers to fall into the trap.

Remember that the numbers have a wide range of paths to follow so one must
be patient and wait for the numbers to run the course that will lead them
back down the path that you laid the trap on.

To hunt numbers you can see where they last moved from and you can see where
they last moved to. Now in hunting and trapping there are rules. The first
rule when hunting for numbers you can only shoot them when they move, you
can't shoot them in the position they are in now. So to take aim you must
determine which numbers are most likely to move next and when they do you
take your shot, remember that it takes six numbers to score a kill.

When trying to capture numbers know the area they go to the most often, how
they move, where they come from and where they go. Design and set a trap
that will be static for long periods of time. After the trap is set you go
hunting, stalk the numbers that are moving the most often or that have just
started moving after a long period of inactivity. You may only score a few
shots on the hunt but there is a chance that your trap captured a few
numbers at the same time.

Scott Rudy.

[Colin Fairbrother]

Anyone following this thread would now be aware, if not before, that Nick UK (aka Nick the Thick or El Thicko) is to use an old Aussie saying - Not a Full Quid.

He titles this thread Wheeling vs Random Number Selection and in his second post enumerates a so called 56 line banker wheel constructed from only 9 of the 49 integers available, with extreme repetition of the paying CombThrees and a 3if6 coverage of only 7%. Obviously, his 9 integer choice was based on appearance in previous draws which he thought would not be noticed - thick you see. He throws out a challenge for anyone to put up 56 random selections to be pitted against his feeble 7% coverage wheel over the next 6 months from 19/10/2013 to say 16/4/2013 ie 52 draws.

In his third post he loses track that he posted 56 lines and repeatedly refers to 54 lines.He then brags about previous wins for his wheel without giving the dates - draw 1139 was 22/11/2006, 1140 25/11/2006 and 1285 16/4/2008 some 5 years ago and nothing given more recent. The fundamental flaw with these multiple win wheels is that while you may get multiple prizes when you do win this rarely makes up for the sparseness of wins.

I have taken up his challenge and nominated the last 56 UK draws as my random selections.

In his last post his ignorance shines through as he doesn't comprehend that in a 56 line set of random selections it is normal to have repeat CombThrees and even a repeat CombFour and this contributes to a lower 3if6 percentage coverage. You can have a 3if3 maximised 56 lines with 1120 CombThrees but this may only give a 55% 3if6 coverage.

As stated before playing 56 lines using all the 49 integers with no repetition of paying CombThrees and 3if6 coverage maximised would give better results. See
http://www.LottoToWin.com

This particular challenge is to pit a set of 56 random selections against a 9 integer petty wheel in the UK 6/49 Lotto game over the next 52 draws. You don't need to read the drivel from Nick the Thick just look at the results when posted.

Colin Fairbrother

[Nick UK]

<comments embedded below>

Conman and liar, Bawlin' Colin Fairbrother wrote <with snips>

>
> He titles this thread Wheeling vs Random Number Selection
> and in his second post enumerates a so called 56 line banker wheel
> constructed from only 9 of the 49 integers available, with extreme
> repetition of the paying CombThrees and a 3if6 coverage of only 7%.
>

What do you mean 'so-called' banker wheel FFS! - It's a genuine pick-9
'banker-1' wheel, so what's your fkn problem?

>
> Obviously, his 9 integer choice was based on appearance in
> previous draws which he thought would not be noticed - thick you see.
> He throws out a challenge for anyone to put up 56 random selections
> to be pitted against his feeble 7% coverage wheel over the next
> 6 months from 19/10/2013 to say 16/4/2013 ie 52 draws.
>

You say my chosen numbers are.. 'Based on appearance in previous draws and
would not be noticed'? Huh? How the fk do you work that one out then? Wrong
again and even I *did* what you accuse me of, what fkn difference would it
make to *future* draw results?

For the benefit of those interested, I found on the Internet, what I believe
is an accurate record of past individual number appearances in the UK 6/49
and are shown below, with my selected nine wheeled numbers indicated by **

Times
No: appeared

01.. 211
02.. 224
03.. 228
04.. 219 **
05.. 218
06.. 233
07.. 222 **
08.. 215
09.. 240
10.. 232
11.. 246
12.. 228
13.. 199
14.. 221 **
15.. 213
16.. 206
17.. 225
18.. 225
19.. 222 **
20.. 188
21.. 202
22.. 217
23.. 248
24.. 234 **
25.. 244
26.. 226
27.. 244
28.. 222
29.. 219
30.. 245
31.. 242 **
32.. 234
33.. 247
34.. 228
35.. 232
36.. 215
37.. 209
38.. 253 **
39.. 248
40.. 251
41.. 205
42.. 223
43.. 243
44.. 253
45.. 231 **
46.. 216
47.. 237 **
48.. 237
49.. 234
>
Now explain to me how you come to the conclusion that my wheeled nine
numbers have been selected based on 'past number appearances'? And as
previously stated, what fkn difference does it make to *future* draw
results? And besides, what fkn business is it of yours which numbers I pick
for my wheel? You ain't right in the fkn head pal!

>
> In his third post he loses track that he posted 56 lines and
> repeatedly refers to 54 lines.
>

Well, I can't think of any subscriber here who hasn't made a typo. What
about your latest typo in the post that I am replying to now, take a peek
Mr.Perfect..

>
> 6 months from 19/10/2013 to say 16/4/2013 ie 52 draws.

Did you spot your typo asshole? Oh yes, I forgot, you're going back into the
past again! Heh-heh.. Best to go Back to the future!
>
Duh! you do prattle on, as do most lying toads..

>
He then brags about previous wins for his wheel without giving
the dates - draw 1139 was 22/11/2006, 1140 25/11/2006 and
1285 16/4/2008 some 5 years ago and nothing given more recent.
The fundamental flaw with these multiple win wheels is
that while you may get multiple prizes when you do win
this rarely makes up for the sparseness of wins.
>

Well considering it's *you* who is looking back, what have you got to
complain about? It will take around 400 years for each of the 13983816
unique combinations to appear in the UK 6/49, so my going back 5 years is
like going back 5 minutes in lottery-time terms. Of course you fail to
mention that I also included more recent draws when my nine-number wheel hit
on several 'fours' and 'threes'.

>
> I have taken up his challenge and nominated the last
> 56 UK draws as my random selections.
>

Challenge? FFS! You have the fkn gall to accuse me of selecting my nine
numbers based on past appearances yet you pick your 56 coms which are the
actual *results* of the past 56 UK 6/49 draws! Now listen up conman Colin..
>
YOU CAN SHOVE YOUR 56 COMS SHOWING ACTUAL RESULTS OF THE PAST 56 UK 6/49
DRAWS.. RIGHT UP YORE ASSHOLE! Sideways if you like.. gerrit?
>
<snip>
>
I've said it before and I'll say it again.. you ain't right in the fkn head,
boyo!
>
Now piss off back to your useless fkn Lotto Poster forum where you charge
your members an annual fee to be derided and insulted by *you* a lying
asshole and filthy conman!

Gerrit?

[Marmaduke Jinks]

"Nick UK" <lott...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message

news:l3u286$mbi$2...@speranza.aioe.org...

I'm a relative newcomer to this group. Nick seems a reasonable guy. I
don't have 56 combinations in mind and mine change every week. But I'd be
interested to see how Nick's get on.

Good luck Nick.

MJ

[Nick UK]

"Marmaduke Jinks" wrote..

I'm a relative newcomer to this group. Nick seems a reasonable guy. I
don't have 56 combinations in mind and mine change every week. But I'd be
interested to see how Nick's get on.

Good luck Nick.

MJ

..................................................

Thank you for your kind comments.

If you have the time to prepare 56 combinations using all 49 numbers and
post them here, we can check them against my nine-number banker-1 wheel for
say 50 draws or how many draws as you like. Might give this forum a bit of
light relief from the nasty posts of recent days.

My apologies to you and to anyone offended by my replies to Conman Colin in
recent posts.

I think most RGLrs know that the guy is a compulsive liar, false-accuser and
trouble-maker: so much so he'd make a Saint swear!

Take a look at his recent RGL posts in the 'Poor Ion Saliu' thread.
Take a look at his recent RGL posts in the 'Coverage Calculations' thread.
Take a look at his recent RGL posts in the 'Need for speed' thread
And of course, the current 'Wheeling vs Random Number' thread.

Each of those threads containing false-accusations, lies, and derision
coupled with his usual arrogance.

Again: I have no doubt Conman Colin is not right in the head!

Cheers MJ.

Nick UK

[Colin Fairbrother]

56 Random Lines versus 56 Line 9 integer Wheel
To run from 19/10/2013 to 16/4/2014
Draw 1860 UK 6/49 Lotto result Saturday 19/10/2013
03 12 19 21 29 31 Bonus 15
No 3 integer or more line matches for either set.

Colin Fairbrother
http://www.ColinFairbrother.com

[Colin Fairbrother]

There are now 1800 draws in the UK 6/49 Lotto game dating from 9/11/1994.

Looking at the first 1744 draws (so as not to include the 56 I nominated) then playing 56 Random Selections per draw we have 97,664 plays and can expect 1724 CombThree matches, 95 CombFour matches and 2 CombFive matches.

Playing the pathetic Sick Thick Nick 9 integer wheel over the first 1744 draws we have 1768 CombThree matches, only 68 CombFour matches and zero CombFive matches.

By contrast the 56 Random Selections I nominated from the last 57 draws less the latest gives over the 1744 draws 1662 CombThree matches, 91 CombFour matches and 6 CombFive matches. Of note is the fact that the Thick Nick set can go 3,542 play or 64 draws without a win with the Random Selection set not exceeding 407 plays or 7 draws.

Using current play costs and payouts we are looking at a cost of £195,328 and a theoretical return of 27.95%

For the Random Selections we have a return of 29% compared to the 26.11% for El Thicko's sicko 9 integer wheel. For 97,664 plays (even extremely bad sets given enough plays will start to get close to the expected) a 3% difference would be accepted by any rational person as convincing proof.

Colin Fairbrother
http://Colinfairbrother.com

[Marmaduke Jinks]

<snip>

> Thank you for your kind comments.
>
> If you have the time to prepare 56 combinations using all 49 numbers and
> post them here, we can check them against my nine-number banker-1 wheel
> for say 50 draws or how many draws as you like. Might give this forum a
> bit of light relief from the nasty posts of recent days.
>
> My apologies to you and to anyone offended by my replies to Conman Colin
> in recent posts.
>
> I think most RGLrs know that the guy is a compulsive liar, false-accuser
> and trouble-maker: so much so he'd make a Saint swear!
>
> Take a look at his recent RGL posts in the 'Poor Ion Saliu' thread.
> Take a look at his recent RGL posts in the 'Coverage Calculations' thread.
> Take a look at his recent RGL posts in the 'Need for speed' thread
> And of course, the current 'Wheeling vs Random Number' thread.
>
> Each of those threads containing false-accusations, lies, and derision
> coupled with his usual arrogance.
>
> Again: I have no doubt Conman Colin is not right in the head!
>
> Cheers MJ.
>
> Nick UK
>

He does seem a bit extreme.

MJ

[sma...@gmx.de]

Am Montag, 14. Oktober 2013 17:52:06 UTC+2 schrieb Nick UK:
> Wish I'd remembered the following Joe Roberts article a couple of years ago
>
> when 'Wheeling vs Random Number Selection' was a subject in this ng. Sadly,
>
> Joe no longer subscribes here and has retired from producing Lottery
>
> Director (CDEX) software.
>
>
>
> LOTTERY WHEELING vs RANDOM NUMBER SELECTION.
>
>
>
> Author: Joe Roberts
>
>
>
> Q. I assume when you wheel your odds of winning the bigger prizes get much
>
> better. But do you give up something so you have more losing tickets in the
>
> long run?
>
>
>
> A. Wheeling does not affect your odds of winning any prize. Its main job
>
> is to give you a known match for a known cost. It's sometimes called a
>
> "conditional win guarantee". The key word there is "conditional".
>
>
>
> Sometimes it gets left out, so that the remaining words "win guarantee"
>
> sound like a sure win. There is no such thing, neither with the wheel nor
>
> without it.
>
>
>
> What a typical wheel of good design does is this. If you match a stated
>
> minimum amount of the game's winning numbers, then you have a stated
>
> likelihood that one or more of your wheeled combinations will have a stated
>
> size of winning match. For example, a typical wheel could stated something
>
> like this:
>
>
>
> "The game will draw 6 winning numbers. If you match any 5 of them, you will
>
> have at least one combination that contains 4 winning numbers in it, and you
>
> can be 100 per cent sure of having it."
>
>
>
> Or ...
>
>
>
> "The game will draw 6 winning numbers. If you match any 4 of them, you will
>
> have at least one combination that contains 3 winning numbers, and you can
>
> be 90 per cent sure."
>
>
>
> There are many variations of wheels. You could visit some of the wheeling
>
> sites listed in the newsgroup's FAQ, and get a pretty good idea of the
>
> variety of wheels that are available.
>
>
>
> There are two practical values to wheeling. One is that you know in advance
>
> what your matching requirements are, what size of prize you'll see if you
>
> fulfil those matching requirements, and what your cost will be. The second
>
> value is in the spacing of your wins at the lower prize levels, giving you
>
> some control over your playing budget.
>
>
>
> When you play a set of combinations that were made at random, you probably
>
> do not cover every possible lower-prize match for the cost you are
>
> outlaying. In other words, you can expect to have some missing matches
>
> (called "holes"). If you happen to match the game's winning numbers, you
>
> may not have any prize in your combinations. For example, you might not
>
> have all of the possible 3-number sets present in your random combinations.
>
>
>
> You matched all 6 winning numbers in your full set of numbers, but you might
>
> see no more than 2 winning numbers in any combination. Where those "holes"
>
> exist in your combinations, there's no prize for that drawing. Those
>
> "holes" are compensated for by your having duplicated matches of your other
>
> numbers, so if you happen to match those other numbers you'll have duplicate
>
> prizes for that drawing. The trouble is, you can't predict which numbers
>
> the game is going to draw, so you don't know (with the random combinations)
>
> if the drawing will hit one of your "holes" or one of your duplicates.
>
>
>
> If you put those two pieces together -- "holes" and duplicates in the
>
> matches -- it means that you will tend to win multiple lower prizes spaced
>
> farther apart in time. On the other hand, a well designed wheel contains
>
> more balanced coverage of the matches. With it, you will tend to win single
>
> lower prizes more often.
>
>
>
> In all cases, for any given set of numbers that you play, and for the same
>
> amount of combinations you make with them, the _total_ matches you will see
>
> over a long period of time will be the same for both the random combinations
>
> and the wheeled ones. That's _total_ matches, over a long time. They
>
> come smaller and more often with wheeling. They come larger and less often
>
> with random combinations.
>
>
>
> Note that the above only applies to your lower-prize matches. Your Jackpot
>
> chances are not affected in any way by either set of combinations -- random
>
> or wheeled.
>
>
>
> So the "benefit" to wheeling goes something like this. If you hope to get a
>
> big win, you must expect to be into the game for a long time (a _very_ long
>
> time). You'll have to play fairly consistently, over a series of draws.
>
>
>
> Until you get a major win, you'll have a net cash outgo -- not income --
>
> because your minor wins will _not_ offset your expenses until you see that
>
> major prize. Any minor wins you receive, gives you cash you can replay. As
>
> that happens you will outlay a proportionately lower amount of your own
>
> cash, freeing the remainder for other (non-lottery) investment or other use
>
> as you see fit.
>
>
>
> It is confusing as can be, unless you try to visualize it like this:
>
>
>
> When you play random combinations, you must expect longer periods of
>
> no-wins, followed by some multiple minor win (say, two or three matches in
>
> the same draw). You can't help it. It's determined by the amounts of
>
> "holes" and duplicates in your combinations. You cannot know just _when_
>
> that multiple win will occur. It could occur on the next drawing, and then
>
> be followed by the long no-win dry spell. Or, you could see the long no-win
>
> dry spell run on for many drawings, eventually followed by some distant
>
> multiple win in one drawing. Obviously if the former happens you can begin
>
> with a slight cash windfall which you can budget for future play. But if
>
> the latter happens you will go through a long period of no money coming back
>
> to you, meaning that you must make the full and continuous cash outlay on
>
> your part. You can't assume which of those effects you'll see, with your
>
> random combinations.
>
>
>
> Now contrast it with the wheeled combinations, for the same set of numbers.
>
> You will see smaller wins, occurring more often. At any point in time, you
>
> know more closely -- not perfectly, but better -- what your cash outlays
>
> will be.
>
>
>
> Either way -- random or wheeled -- you will see the same total cost and the
>
> same total amount of prizes over a long time, perhaps over a span of several
>
> years. But with the wheeled combinations, your minor wins will come to you
>
> as a succession of relatively short-term smaller wins. With your random
>
> combinations, your minor wins will come as series of long dry no-win spells
>
> punctuated by larger wins.
>
>
>
> Keep this timing effect in the same view with your playing goal. You won't
>
> make money in Lotto with minor wins. All they can do is offset your cost
>
> toward the big win. Your goal is a major win like the Jackpot or large
>
> second prize. With that goal you have to expect to be in the game for the
>
> long term, probably for years. Suppose a set of combinations gives you back
>
> 20 per cent on your play, from minor wins. Over the long term you will be
>
> outlaying 80 per cent of your cost toward a big win. Consider how you will
>
> have to outlay that 80 per cent -- meaning, how you will get the 20 per cent
>
> on return from minor wins.
>
>
>
> With the wheeled combinations, your cost will be a more steady 80 per cent
>
> than with the random combinations. To illustrate it, with the wheeled
>
> combinations you might outlay something close to 80 per cent of your playing
>
> cost in each year for three years. With the random combinations, you might
>
> outlay 100 per cent of your playing cost in two of the three years, with
>
> just
>
> 40 per cent in the other year. The point is, with random combinations you
>
> cannot know in advance what cost will occur in any of those three years.
>
>
>
> (There is a way to calculate your average cost, by running a 'matching
>
> validation' test on the random combinations, but there would be little point
>
> in doing it. You would know your average cost, but you still couldn't
>
> predict the actual cost in any year.) So if you have other ideas for your
>
> ready cash besides playing the Lotto (and one hopes you do), then you can
>
> manage the cash more closely with the wheeling.
>
>
>
> For USA players there is also some benefit in your net taxable income from
>
> wins, with wheeling. There are some benefits where prizes are paid on the
>
> pari-mutuel, although they are slight.
>
>
>
> The bottom line is, it does not cost you any more to wheel your numbers than
>
> it does to put them into the same quantity of random combinations. Your
>
> Jackpot chances are identical, either way. The difference is in the more
>
> balanced coverage of lower-prize matches.
>
>
>
> Joe Roberts.

Hi Nick Uk,

some years ago I developped a positional random number generator
in Java script.
Unfortunately it works only with the Firefox browser and not with
the Microsoft Internet Explorer. Therefore it is not available for public.

The idea behind it is to define for each number position a range of
numbers for this position. Also up to 4 banker numbers are possible.
And also two filters are possible.

With this random number generator I generated 150 lines with
random numbers. I set the following number ranges:

The number range for position 1 is 1 to 10
The number range for position 2 is 5 to 20
The number range for position 3 is 9 to 27
The number range for position 4 is 17 to 34
The number range for position 5 is 25 to 42
The number range for position 6 is 33 to 49

The filter settings are:
1) High/Low filter: The first 3 numbers are 1 to 25, the second 3 numbers are 26 to 49

2) Odd/Even filter: max 4 odd and max 4 even numbers

The results appear in ascending sorted order.

With Covermaster I removed step by step the lines with the lowest
covering until 59 lines were the rest and got the following wheel for you:

First random wheel with filtering:

8 9 21 26 30 45
3 19 20 30 31 40
2 15 18 30 35 43
4 19 22 27 37 46
1 13 18 26 32 44
8 17 23 31 33 46
2 9 13 29 36 40
1 15 22 28 30 37
3 15 17 27 36 44
5 12 17 28 35 40
2 10 17 28 42 49
7 14 18 33 38 49
5 15 24 26 33 44
7 8 19 32 36 42
5 14 19 25 34 47
3 11 18 28 34 47
4 9 12 30 42 47
1 16 17 29 36 46
3 10 13 31 38 45
4 15 16 31 36 38
7 8 15 29 34 46
4 14 21 27 28 38
3 16 23 26 32 47
1 11 14 28 31 44
4 6 23 30 35 40
2 19 22 32 33 49
7 17 20 33 34 40
2 5 16 26 29 43
3 6 24 28 29 41
2 9 23 31 32 39
6 9 22 27 34 35
4 14 17 30 39 49
4 9 11 26 33 48
5 14 23 32 41 45
6 13 18 27 41 47
10 12 15 27 41 48
9 10 24 25 31 36
1 14 16 26 27 39
1 8 11 25 34 48
8 11 16 28 32 49
5 6 13 31 42 48
4 7 13 25 31 48
5 10 11 27 30 44
6 12 25 26 36 41
2 12 16 33 38 41
5 10 21 29 33 38
9 10 16 28 33 35
5 10 22 34 39 48
3 6 22 25 29 42
6 7 18 30 37 42
6 12 17 29 34 38
6 10 13 30 32 43
2 13 20 28 30 39
3 14 25 32 36 40
8 9 25 33 37 42
7 20 22 27 32 39
5 15 20 25 28 41
4 10 11 32 41 45
4 7 12 34 39 41

For the second wheel I used the same banker number 31 like you to have a real comparison.

The RNG (Random Number Generator) settings are:

The number range for position 1 is 31 to 31 = banker number 31
The number range for position 2 is 1 to 20
The number range for position 3 is 5 to 27
The number range for position 4 is 12 to 34
The number range for position 5 is 20 to 42
The number range for position 6 is 28 to 49
No filter settings

The second random wheel with banker number 31 and without filter:

1 15 21 31 41 42
1 7 20 23 31 49
2 7 17 31 34 47
4 8 20 31 37 44
8 13 25 31 34 38
10 18 20 26 31 43
4 8 31 32 38 43
10 22 24 31 33 46
5 11 18 21 31 34
6 23 28 31 39 43
16 20 31 33 34 40
5 7 12 23 31 42
6 7 24 31 32 37
9 22 28 31 32 44
5 18 28 30 31 49
4 12 14 31 34 48
10 19 28 31 36 45
1 9 18 29 31 38
3 5 15 31 39 41
4 7 22 31 40 45
6 20 27 30 31 48
4 11 15 24 31 48
13 19 22 26 31 49
14 17 18 27 31 46
12 20 31 32 36 48
6 16 22 31 39 42
2 17 21 24 31 35
6 9 14 21 31 33
10 24 28 31 40 47
3 5 29 31 32 40
11 13 23 29 30 31
3 19 24 26 31 43
8 16 17 21 31 36
11 16 26 31 32 45
5 16 22 31 37 47
13 14 16 31 37 41
7 11 26 28 31 33
6 12 24 28 31 38
4 21 26 27 31 45
3 23 29 31 35 41
2 9 26 27 31 33
8 17 30 31 33 35
9 17 19 31 36 38
17 22 23 25 31 32
9 18 25 31 37 42
8 9 14 31 40 41
3 15 28 29 31 37
7 14 19 25 29 31
10 19 25 31 33 48
9 12 18 30 31 47
12 20 21 22 31 40
5 19 26 31 35 48
11 15 16 31 37 46
12 13 27 30 31 44
14 15 19 30 31 35
11 14 25 31 40 42
17 25 27 31 40 43
13 15 23 27 31 35
13 17 27 31 39 42

All wheels with 59 lines have the same chance for the Jackpot.
Over a long time all such wheels will have the same win results.
The positional random number selection should generate random lines
for more often small wins. Let's test it!

Have much fun!

Manfred

[sma...@gmx.de]

For 56 lines please remove the last 3 lines

Manfred

[Nick UK]

Manfred wrote..

............................................................................

Hi Manfred,

I have placed both your wheels into the new 'Random compared to Wheeling
comparison' thread and as with Charlie's entry, I have sorted and numbered
them: again, for ease of checking with future draw results.

I have removed the last three coms in each of your entries, as requested.

If other subscribers want to join in with the comparison test, then kindly
place your entries in the appropriate new thread 'Random compared to
Wheeling' sorting them into numerical order and numbering same 01-56, again,
for ease of checking with future draw results. Thank you.

Good luck.
Nick UK.

[Colin Fairbrother]

The 56 line Pool 9 key wheel nominated by Nicholas Carlin aka Nick UK, Nick the Thick and El Thicko is usually given in template form using integers 1 to 9 so as to make the construction transparent. One would have to go back many years to find a blatent use of UK Lotto integer frequency to promote the wheel in such a con-artist way - but that is what he is and it's easily verifiable.

The construct has been pointed out before ie a full Pick 5 wheel for 8 integers then convert to Pick 6 by adding the same integer to each line. The so called guarantee is a con-artist trick as it does not apply to a 6/49 Lotto game. See -
LOTTO WHEELS OR COVERS CON-ARTIST CLAIMS
TOTALLY DEBUNKED IN TABLE
http://www.colinfairbrother.com/UsingLesserPoolCoversInLotto.aspx

His so called banker number or key number is 31 which is ranked 12th in occurrence at 243 and 38 is ranked 1st at 253 with 47 14th, 24 17th and 45 22nd. Coincidence? Hah! There are 84 distinct CombThrees in Nick the Thick's 56 lines using his nominated integers and amazingly 73 of these appear
in the UK history. So out of 18,424 possible CombThrees his Key Wheel sample manages to get an 87% match up to the history! His intention is obvious - to point out the consecutive draw wins. However, the irony is over the history integers 1 to 9 give a better return of 26.87% compared to 26.11% and way
behind expected at 27.95% and my nominated random selections at 29%.

I have gone through the history at 52 draw intervals ie 34 samples and using the old costs and payouts of £1, £10, £60 and £1500 23 of the 34 favour Random Selections. Using the new costs and payouts of £2, £25, £100 and £1000 20 of the 34 favour Random Selections with 2 Sets the same. The point being
that a single trial of 52 draws is statistically inconclusive wheras 34 trials is.

El Thicko could end up with just £250 back after a pretend trial expending 52 x 56 x 2 = £5824 for a 4% return. At worst the Random Selections should give more than double that ie 8% and more likely £1585 or 27%.

Colin Fairbrother
http://www.ColinFairbrother.com

[Nick UK]

<comments embedded below>

Bawlin' Colin Fairbrother wrote..

> Nicholas Carlin aka Nick UK..

You got it the wrong way round asshole! *Firstly* my RGL subscriber handle
is Nick UK, so it should be 'Nick UK - aka Nicholas Carlin'.. gerrit?

> The 56 line Pool 9 key wheel nominated by Nick the Thick and El

> Thicko is usually given in template form using integers 1 to 9 so as
> to make the construction transparent.

Now why the fk would I want to show the LDIR 'Banker-1' wheel in template
form? Construction transparent? FFS! The 800 or so wheels in the LDIR
(Lottery Director) software are *already prepared*. All the user needs to
do is enter his chosen numbers (or integers as you stupidly prefer to call
them) select the wheel reference number and the software quickly prepares
the finished wheel! That's why wheeling software exists.. asshole!

> One would have to go back many years to find a blatent use of UK Lotto
> integer frequency to promote the wheel in such a con-artist way - but that
> is what he is and it's easily verifiable.

I normally ignore subscriber's typos, because we ordinary, normal humans
usually make allowances. However, *you're* the one who regularly highlights
typos, so I will now do likewise. 'Blatent' as you spell it, should be
*Blatant* - asshole!

Con-artist? WTF? A con-artist usually cons people for financial gain..
asshole! 'Easily verifiable'? WTF? I have simply posted a genuine 56-com
wheel constructed by LDIR for comparison with one or more 56 random-number
combinations, with no intention of conning anyone FFS! I'll say it yet
again.. you ain't right in the fkn head!

> The construct has been pointed out before ie a full Pick 5 wheel for 8
> integers then convert to Pick 6 by adding the same integer to each line.
> The so called guarantee is a con-artist trick as it does not apply to a

> 6/49 Lotto game. See - <snip>

Duh! Yet more fkn 'integer' mumbo-jumbo! What the fk are you on about now?..
asshole!

> His so called banker number or key number is 31 which is ranked 12th in
> occurrence at 243 and 38 is ranked 1st at 253 with 47 14th, 24 17th and
> 45 22nd. Coincidence? Hah! There are 84 distinct CombThrees in Nick the
> Thick's 56 lines using his nominated integers and amazingly 73 of these

> appear in the UK history. <snip the useless fkn percentage gobbledegook>

Now if it was true that I selected my nine numbers based on past
appearances, surely I'd have picked the nine numbers with the *best* past
appearance record! If number 38 is the top number, having appeared more
than any other, then 38 would have been my banker number - eh?

So it follows: if anyone here wants to post a non-random wheel (say for
comparison with another) you must first ensure that the numbers you choose,
meets with Fairbrother's approval, otherwise you'll be flamed and accused of
being a 'con-artist'! Again.. the old fart ain't right in the fkn head!

It is of course a well known fact that Fairbrother's 'Lotto Poster' is
self-moderated by him and posts submitted to his forum by members are
banned/censored if they disagree with anything Fairbrother has previously
said. And anyone stupid enough to join 'Lotto Poster' is charged an annual
fee for the pleasure.. FFS! This guy ain't real!

> I have gone through the history at 52 draw intervals ie blah, blah, blah..

<snip the remaining 'statistically inconclusive' claptrap>

Colin 'The Fuhrer' Fairbrother
A miserable old FART who ain't right in the fkn head!

[Colin Fairbrother]

56 Random Lines versus 56 Line 9 integer Key 1 Wheel

To run from 19/10/2013 to 16/4/2014

Draw 1861 Wednesday 23/10/2013 UK 6/49 Lotto result
10 18 27 37 41 47 Bonus 33
Random Selections:
23/10/2013 CombThree Win £25
[Cum Prizes]/[Cum Cost] 25/224 = 11.16% Loss £199

Nick UK 9 integer Key 1 Wheel:
No Wins to date
Loss £224

The ignorance, incompetentness, lies and deceptions continue to shine through from Nicholas Carlin aka Nick UK. The Lotto Wheel he chose to promote is one of the worst examples of wheeling nonsense available and is based on all the 56 combinations of 5 integers from a Pool of 8 and then the same integer is added to each line for 56 Pick 6 lines.

Let's clear up something that Mr Carlin is having difficulty understanding. The results for the UK Lotto up to draw 1859 16/10/2013 were known so anyone has the benefit of hindsight to manipulate integers subsequently chosen for testing over the same number of draws. For this reason if integers 1 to 9 are given for testing manipulation is not an argument. As I have pointed out using integers 1 to 9 and the old cost and payouts of £1, £10, £60 and £1500 over 1744 draws actually gives a better percentage return than that using the concocted integers from Nick UK of 23.47% compared to 22.28% and way behind the Random Selections I nominated from draw 1804 to 1859 which gave 31.82% and also that expected per probability calculation of 26.56%.

All the so called results given by Nicholas Carlin are wrong. He just can't comprehend that for a Pool 9 Key 1 Wheel the possible 9 group outcomes are known, irrespective of the integers chosen and are easily verified in CoverMaster by doing a detailed report. The analysis shows for the 56 line 9 integer key 1 wheel that for the 13,983,816 possible draw combinations for the main numbers there are really only 5 feasible result groups with 4 others almost impossible. A massive 13,050,492 or 93% of the possible draw results will give absolutely no wins. A miserly 4% will give 10 CombThree matches and 2% will give 20 CombThree matches. The remaining 1% is made up mainly of 4 CombFours with 24 CombThrees or 10 CombFours with 30 CombThrees and the rest are practically unobtainable including anything with a CombFive.

Mr Carlin chose 3 draws with wins to promote his specific 9 integer key 1 wheel: -
-
1139 22/11/2006 14 15 24 31 45 49 (34)
1140 25/11/2006 04 07 31 38 44 48 (01)
1285 16/04/2008 04 10 14 29 31 38 (43)

You don't have to look too hard to see where his nominated integers have come from with 4 matches in each draw and only 2 integers not included.

Draw number 1139 gives 10 4's and 30 3's not 10 4's and 18 3's which is impossible.

Draw 1140 gives 10 4's and 30 3's not 10 4's and 29 3's which is impossible.

Draw 1285 gives 10 4's and 30 3's not 10 4's and 18 3's which is impossible.

He makes a big thing about draws 1139 and 1140 being consecutive but this is not that uncommon given 56 plays are made each draw and actually occurs about once every 200 draws.

The saga of ignorance, incompetence and deceptions continues with Mr Nicholas Carlin aka Nick UK. A history of mental illness clearly shows through in his infantile efforts to sideline the main issue,

which are deliberately ignored, and that is his false contention that a Pool 9 Key 1 Wheel will do better than Random Selections in a 6/49 Lotto game.

Colin Fairbrother
http://www.LottoPoster.com
http://www.ColinFairbrother.com
http://www.LottoToWin.com ($5 subscription applies)

[Nick UK]

Bawlin' Colin Fairbrother blathered..

'Pool9-pool8-integers-23%-22%-31%-Covermaster-Com4-Com3-Com4-56
plays-random-wheeled-yap-yap-yap-yap-yap-yap-yap-yap-blah-blah-blah-blah'!

Duh! Who fkn cares?
<Boredom in the extreme! So the lot gets snipped>

Fairbrother: the miserable old fart who ain't right in the fkn head!

Much more interesting here..
http://trollsville.bravesites.com/

[Colin Fairbrother]

Conman Nicholas Carlin aka Nick UK now realizes that he has well and truly been caught out with his deception of choosing 9 integers for a Pool 9 Key 1 Wheel so as to produce consecutive 4 match wins in the UK Lotto game. Looks like another depression episode is due from which he may never recover.

The date of this deception was October 16, 2013 and the UK Lotto then had 1859 draws. However for poor Nick using an out of date bit of software called CDEX, which produces inacurate simple win calculations, he was limited to 1680 draws as he didn't have the nonce to find the txt file and add a few draws.

An analysis of the possible wins from the 13,983,816 possible combinations of 6 integers in the UK 6/49 Lotto game can be done using the free CoverMaster program from John Rawson (how to get it - http://lottoposter.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=609). Despite all the years hanging around this newsgroup and bleating the most absurd nonsense Nicholas Carlin has not availed himself of this program. His latest post indicates his contempt for and total inability to comprehend the simplest Lotto analysis and would not endear him to those who participate in or monitor this newsgroup, as good or bad analysis is the binding factor.

From the CoverMaster detailed report we get from his Pool 9 Key 1 Wheel in a 6/49 Lotto game the following report which is based on the structure and will be the same whatever the 9 integers used -

6 5 4 3 Total % Acc %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- - - - 13050492 93.32568 93.32568
- - - 10 553280 3.95657 97.28226
- - - 20 276640 1.97829 99.26055
- - 4 24 54600 0.39045 99.65100
- - 10 30 43680 0.31236 99.96336
- 1 15 30 2240 0.01602 99.97938
- 4 24 24 2800 0.02002 99.99940
- 6 30 20 28 0.00020 99.99960
1 15 30 10 56 0.00040 100.00000

For 1680 UK Lotto draws or Random Selections we can apply the same proportionality and for the prize group 10 4's with 20 3's we may get 1680 x 43680/13983816 to give around 5 occurrences. Of these 5 to have 2 in consecutive draws is extremely unlikely to happen and in reality only occurs by manipulating the choice of 9 integers through the knowledge of past draws.

All those who contribute to this newsgroup, if only now and then should express their contempt for such sculldugery, as it is an insult to the intelligence of those who exercise their brain now and then in this field of interest.

[Nick UK]

Bawlin' Colin Fairbrother (the resident RGL Troll) blathered..

<snore - snip the lot>

Updated..
http://trollsville.bravesites.com/

[Nick UK]

RGL subscribers following the ..'Wheeling vs. Random' thread will be aware
that our resident Troll Colin Fairbrother, accused me of being a 'con-artist'.

Now what brought about the accusation? Well, the accusation came about when
I picked nine numbers for my Banker--1 wheel which I wanted to compare
against 56 random combinations, that is, in *future* UK 6/49 draws.

As a reminder, here's a couple of snippets from the Troll's recent posts..

> Obviously, his 9 integer choice was based on appearance in
> previous draws which he thought would not be noticed -
> thick you see.

Plus..

> His so called banker number or key number is 31 which is
> ranked 12th in occurrence at 243 and 38 is ranked 1st at 253
> with 47 14th, 24 17th and 45 22nd. Coincidence? Hah!

And..

A snippet from 'Rule 7' of the Troll's..

*7 Golden rules of Lotto*..

June 2010..

> 7. Every Lotto draw is an independent event where all the
> parameters are reset and every integer has an equal opportunity to
> be picked. What has previously occurred (the history of draws)
> has no bearing on subsequent draws and for all intents and purposes is
> irrelevant.
>
> Colin Fairbrother.

Hmmmm: the Troll says, that the history of Lotto draws..

> has no bearing on subsequent draws and for all intents and purposes is
> irrelevant.

That being the case, then what's his problem? What difference does it make
which numbers I choose for my wheel? It's Troll Fairbrother who is
contradicting himself! It is Troll Fairbrother who is the *real*
con-artist.. not me!

And of course, the Troll conveniently fails to mention that my remaining
fours numbers.. 07 is ranked 31st 19 is ranked 32nd , 14 is ranked 34th.
and 04 is ranked 35th out of the 49 numbers available.

My nine chosen wheeled numbers are..
04 07 14 19 24 *31* 38 45 47

I have sorted the number appearance chart and here they are with my chosen
nine numbers starred **. This is the 'past appearance record as it stood a
couple of days ago..

Times
Rank No: appeared

01) 38.. 253 ** my number
02) 44.. 253
03) 40.. 251
04) 23.. 248
05) 39.. 248
06) 33.. 247
07) 11.. 246
08) 30.. 245
09) 25.. 244
10) 27.. 244
11) 43.. 243
12) 31.. 242 ** my banker number
13) 09.. 240
14) 47.. 237 ** my number
15) 48.. 237
16) 24.. 234 ** my number
17) 32.. 234
18) 49.. 234
19) 06.. 233
20) 10.. 232
21) 35.. 232
22) 45.. 231 ** my number
23) 03.. 228
24) 12.. 228
25) 34.. 228
26) 26.. 226
27) 17.. 225
28) 18.. 225
29) 02.. 224
30) 42.. 223
31) 07.. 222 ** my number
32) 19.. 222 ** my number
33) 28.. 222
34) 14.. 221 ** my number
35) 04.. 219 ** my number
36) 05.. 218
37) 22.. 217
38) 46.. 216
39) 08.. 215
40) 36.. 215
41) 15.. 213
42) 01.. 211
43) 37.. 209
44) 16.. 206
45) 41.. 205
46) 21.. 202
47) 13.. 199
48) 20.. 188
49) 29.. 219

Surely if was guilty of what the Troll Fairbrother accuse me of then I'd
have picked the top nine numbers, that is, those numbers with the *best*
past appearance record namely..

01) 38.. 253
02) 44.. 253
03) 40.. 251
04) 23.. 248
05) 39.. 248
06) 33.. 247
07) 11.. 246
08) 30.. 245
09) 25.. 244

And from that chart, surely my banker number would have been *38* and not 31
which I chose for my banker number and which is not in the top nine numbers
chart (from past appearances) above.

Of course, it is a fact that past lottery results or past number appearances
cannot possibly have any effect on future draws: yet, when it suits him he
accuses me of using the numbers' past history' when choosing my nine numbers
for my banker-1 wheel and accuses me a con-artists for doing so! Duh!

Folks who happen to use their lottery 'past history' when choosing their
numbers, have also been accused of being 'occultists' or 'voodooists.'

It is well documented that in the past, the Troll Fairbrother has regularly
attempted to discredit subscribers to this newsgroup, calling them 'con-artists'
and 'con-men' No need to go too far back.. just look at the Troll's recent
RGL posts.

In his own 'Lotto Poster' forum, which he moderates, subscribers who happen
to post alternative viewpoints to his, have their posts censored by him and
many are simply refused to have their say.

Snippets of recent Troll Fairbrother posts have recently been reposted here
by me. There is also *dozens* of similar troll posts in the RGL archives.
The evidence is clear and is there for all to see!

Anyone following this thread will have no doubt exactly who the
con-artist/conman is - hence the title bestowed on Fairbrother by ex-RGL
leader Robert Perkis and that title is ..

COLIN FAIRBROTHER - RGLs RESIDENT TROLL!

[Colin Fairbrother]

All the slimy slithering from Lotto Con-Artist Nicholas Carlin aka Nick UK cannot change what he has already written. Let's summarize -

Message 1 October 15, 2013
He quotes an old farcical and factually incorrect article from Joe Roberts espousing Wheeling as being better than Random Selections.

Message 2 October 16, 2013
Following being taken to task by Ion Saliu disparaging the Joe Roberts article he gives a specific Wheel example, a 56 Line Pool 9, Key 1 Wheel using his magic integers of 04 07 14 19 24 *31* 38 45 47 with 31 the Key integer.

Nicholas Carlin then throws out the following challenge: -
"Would you Peskyduck (or anyone else here) care to put up and post 56 random
combinations and pit them against my nine-number 56 combination wheel,above?"

"If so, the challenge would be for six months in the UK Wednesday and
Saturday 6/49 draws, commencing say, this coming Saturday 19th October."

Message 3 October 17, 2013
Once again taken to task by Ion Saliu and reference made to him being run over by an 18 wheeler as quite correctly Nicholas Carlin is such a low life even lower even than a snake's belly. Nick UK dismisses the notion that his wheel can be tested against any other 6/49 game a view that only an ignoramus could hold.

Message 4 October 17, 2013

Discarding his previously stated view that checking a Wheel over previous history has no relevance Nicholas Carlin now boasts about three wins for his specific Pool 9, Key 1 56 line wheel as follows: -

"Three retrospective draw results I checked..

UK Draw 1285 result.. 04 10 14 29 31 38 (43)
My wheel won £520 for 10 x 4 hits plus £180 for 18 x 3 hits
(total wins for draw 1285 is £700)

UK Draw 1140 result.. 04 07 31 38 44 48 (01)
My wheel won £530 for 10 x 4 hits plus £290 for 29 x 3 hits
(total wins for draw 1140 is £820)

UK Draw 1139 result 14 15 24 31 45 49 (34)
My wheel won £930 for 10 x 4 hits plus £310 for 31 x 3 hits
(total wins for draw 1139 is £1240)

Note the good returns in two *consecutive* draws.. 1140 and 1139

The above is only a tiny sample of retrospective results from my wheel and I
assure you there are many similar draws showing multiple '4' and many
hundreds of '3' wins, using the above wheeled combinations."

...

"Unless you hit on a '5' or a '6' there is no way any 56 *random*
combinations of yours could possibly achieve results anything like the three
above."

"With 56 random coms, you will average *one* match 3 win per draw.. and you
know it!"

"Listen up you Lotto players.. forget random coms and useless mathematics
trying to prove a useless point - Wheeling is best!"

This is the point at which I decided to introduce a bit of rationality and reality in my post October 17, 2013 pointing out that if you know the draw history you can use 56 lines to win 1st prize in each of the previous 56 draws. I also gave analysis information that totally debunked any merit in Nick UK's wheel.

Message 5 October 17, 2013

Con-Artist Nicholas Carlin throws out the following challenge to me: -
"Let's see you post 56 truly random combinations here and
pit them against my 56 wheeled coms for the next 100 UK 6/49 draws (or as
many draws as you prefer) and let's see the result."

"I predict.. YOU WILL LOSE!"

I promply replied and nominated the last 56 UK draws as ny selection to remove any charge of cherry picking.

Message 6 October 17, 2013

Con-man Nicholas Carlin boasts again about his three contrived wins two being consecutive and including false descriptions of the win quantities.

Subsequently I posted -
One should also point out that he is so thick that he doesn't realize we are a wakeup to his con-artistry in concocting a set to give wins after the draws have been held. Has he done this before - sure, see: -
BEST JACKPOT LOTTO GAME IN THE WORLD
http://lottoposter.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=640&FID=91&PR=3

So, enough chit chat let's show by example what the sneaky, feeble minded idiot did.

Take the first draw in the UK Lotto 19/11/94 03 05 14 22 30 44 and the second draw 06 12 15 16 31 44. Now, for 7 of the 9 integers in the pathetic Pool 9, Key 1 Wheel use 03 05 14 06 12 15 and 44 for the Key integer. Now, from draw 167 30/7/97 03 06 12 19 44 45 add another two integers 19 and 45 to make up the nine integers and then when testing you will find they each give the highly unlikely 10 match Fours and 30 match Threes.

The problem with stupid people is they don't have the intelligence to realize how stupid they are.

[Nick UK]

The following snips from the 'Lottoforum' newsgroup..

Ref: Colin Fairbrother and his moderated 'Lottoposter' forum.

Posted by username 'Springbok'

> I very rarely visit Fairbrother's Lotto Poster site but was intrigued by
> the matrixes he posted.
>
> I checked 2 of them against the UK draws and found that that creating
> random combinations was more successful then using his matrixes.
> I posted the results on his forum and the random combinations I used
> for him to check himself. The result was my posts were deleted.
> Then when I posted another set of results he banned me from posting
> there saying I was a "nuisance". Should anyone bother to visit his site
> and make a comment, then be warned, make sure you agree with him
> or be censored.
>
> 'Brad' responded..
>
> What's this?? You had the nerve to trump HM-CMF?!
> How dare you!! Off with your head!!
>
> I thought the site was the exclusive domain of His Majesty
> and his court jester Pig & Whistle.
>
> 'Johnph77' followed up with..

> Fairbrother strikes me as being a kid playing a game as in
> "I am King of the Castle and you are a dirty rascal" .
> He purports to be scientific and mathematical when
> he is in fact neither. To him 2+2 equals whatever he
> wants it to be. Maybe he posts from the library of the
> Sydney Psychiatric Institute.

Below is Fairbrother's farewell note to 'Johnph77'..

> I pointed out to you your tests were irrelevant as they
> were over only a few hundred draws whereas mine
> are over 17,850.
>
> There are plenty of tests on this site where I have compared
> my random number generator to the results expected per
> probability theory over 17,850 draws.
>
> I now regard your posts as an irritant and have therefore
> curtailed your permission to post.
>
> If you have an article in the future that can stand up to scientific
> analysis you may run it by me first. From the history of your posts
> I doubt whether that is possible.
>
> Goodbye.
> Colin Fairbrother
>
> Then user 'Grandmaster' posted this..
>
> I received same treatment, Colin F simply deleted a post I made
> about one of his wheel vs one optimized wheel, he doesn't like
> the results. After that action I never posted again in his forum.
..............................................................................

Above is *proof positive* that the Troll Fairbrother, is an arrogant
dictator, a liar and a wretched, miserable old fart!

And there's more to follow.

Nick UK

[Colin Fairbrother]

56 Random Lines versus 56 Line 9 integer Key 1 Wheel
To run from 19/10/2013 to 16/4/2014

Draw 1862 Saturday 26/10/2013 UK 6/49 Lotto result
10 14 20 22 45 49 Bonus 09

Random Selections:
19/10/2013 No Wins
23/10/2013 1 x CombThree Win £25 10 18 41
26/10/2013 1 x CombThree Win £25 10 20 22
[Cum Prizes]/[Cum Cost] 50/336 = 14.88% Loss £286

Nick UK 9 integer Key 1 Wheel:
No Wins to date

Loss £336

Random Selections ahead by £50.

[Colin Fairbrother]

All the years of nonsense banal banter by Lotto con-man Nicholas Carlin aka Nick UK in this newsgroup, where he has been exposed to the fundamentals of Lotto analysis but learnt nothing for the reality is we are dealing with someone so ignorant that he might as well be a one day newbie.

UK Lotto draws when kept in the order drawn are valid random selections of 6 integers from 49. Filter or interfere with the order and they are no longer Random Selections. If I had chosen the first 56 draws with the highest 3if6 coverage of 66.47% I could have been accused of cherry picking. The 56 draws from 1803 to 1859 with a 64.44% coverage were nominated. The average coverage for the 33 segments at 56 draw intervals is 65.16%. The lowest coverage is 64.17%

His idiocy manifests in not being able to understand that if you know the history you can manipulate, as he did, the integers used in a Pool 9 Key 1 Wheel to produce in his case 3 results with 10 Four Matches and 30 Three matches two of which were consecutive. I topped that by showing how 9 integers could be used using 7 from the first two draws in the UK Lotto and then 2 from draw 167 getting 10 Four Matches and 30 Three Matches for the consecutive draws and 1st prize, 15 Five Matches, 10 Four Matches and 30 Three matches for draw 167.

The con-man carries on as if he has not been caught out but I doubt there is one reader who gives him anything but zero credibility and most would believe their intelligence has been insulted by trying such a low life deception.

Colin Fairbrother
http://www.ColinFairbrother.com
http://www.LottoPoster.com
http://www.LottoToWin.com

[Nick UK]

RGLs resident Troll bawlin' Colin Fairbrother" bawled..

.......................................................................

The *operative* word in all that crap above, being.. credibility!

No mention of the fact that after Saturday's UK 6/49 draw result (26 Oct
2013) the conman attempted to gain a 'match 3' win that didn't exist!

He did respond to my post asking anyone interested to find *two* 'match 3'
wins in his 56 coms. Realising he'd been found out, he reposted, correcting
his 'sum ahead' (�75) down to the �50 but still failed to correct his 'hits'
result, repeating that he got *two* 'match 3' wins instead of the true
*one* 'match 3' win in Saturday's UK 6/49 draw.

Here's what he posted after that draw on Saturday..

> 56 Random Lines versus 56 Line 9 integer Key 1 Wheel
> To run from 19/10/2013 to 16/4/2014
> Draw 1862 Saturday 26/10/2013 UK 6/49 Lotto result
> 10 14 20 22 45 49 Bonus 09
>
> Random Selections:

> 23/10/2013 1 x CombThree Win �25

> 26/10/2013 2 x CombThree Win �50
> [Cum Prizes]/[Cum Cost] 75/336 = 22.32% Loss �261

>
> Nick UK 9 integer Key 1 Wheel:
> No Wins to date
>Loss �336
>

> Random Selections ahead by �75.

Note: 26/10/2013 *2* x CombThree Win �50
Note: Random Selections ahead by �75.

He is so desperate to get ahead in *his* comparison test, he stoops to
stealing 'match 3' wins that don't exist: that is, in the forlorn hope that
nobody will notice his underhand motives! Duh! How low can a person stoop?

Credibility? Colin Fairbrother has lost any credibility he *may* have had
elsewhere on Usenet, but *never* had in RGL!

The real comparison test is in the 'Random compared to Wheeling' thread and
CF is *not* included in that test! We don't accommodate Trolls and liars in
RGL.

Will he ever get the message? Let's try again..

GO AWAY TROLL, YOU'RE NOT WANTED HERE!

Nick UK
http://trollsville.bravesites.com/

[nigel]

Nick UK wrote:

> He is so desperate to get ahead in *his* comparison test, he stoops to
> stealing 'match 3' wins that don't exist: that is, in the forlorn hope that
> nobody will notice his underhand motives! Duh! How low can a person stoop?

I haven't checked the results for myself, but more often than not a set
of random combinations should outperform a tight wheel.

The missed point is that as the number of draws tends to infinity, the
overall performance of the random combinations and the tight wheel will
merge to indifferentiability. And there's the rub - when the numbers in
the tight wheel are right, their performance makes up for all the other
draws when the random combinations do better. That's the whole point of
volatility, to obtain the maximum collateral when things go well.

Anyone who doesn't understand that has failed Gambling 101.

Evil Nigel

[Colin Fairbrother]

Key or Banker Wheels or as Gail Howard calls them "Power Wheels" have been around since the late 1980's and pander to the false notion that from the near previous history of draws or random selections for a particular Lotto game some integers can be "calculated" to be more likely than others in the next draw.

For this 56 Line Pool 9 Pick 6 Key 1 Wheel the confidence trick lies in the 6if6 guarantee being only applicable to Pool 9 and if you do get 6 integers correct the Key integer must be included. To then apply this guarantee to a Pool 49 Pick 6 Lotto game is utter absurdity and this is demonstrated in a table at

LOTTO WHEELS OR COVERS CON-ARTIST CLAIMS
TOTALLY DEBUNKED IN TABLE
http://www.colinfairbrother.com/UsingLesserPoolCoversInLotto.aspx

The notion that previous history is a guide to future drawings is pure occultist and numerology rubbish as pointed out in many articles I have written which are freely available from http://www.LottoPoster.com or http://www.ColinFairbrother.com and in particular -
Analysis of Lotto Draw History - the Final Word
http://www.colinfairbrother.com/AnalysisOfLottoDrawHistoryFinalWord.aspx.

The odds given for a 6/49 Lotto game are worked out on a ratio of the possible paying CombThrees after allowing for higher prizes. In the case of a CombThree prize the CombFour, CombFive and CombSix are deducted so we have a ratio of all the possible CombSixes (13,983,816) divided by all the possible CombThrees from 43 (12341) multiplied by the 20 CombThrees in each line to give odds of 1:56.65. Similarly, the odds for a CombFour win are 1:1032.4 and a CombFive 1:54200.

For Random Selections there are a varying number of repeat CombThrees in 56 lines so for the UK Lotto history considering 33 segments of 56 draws we find the 3if6 coverage varies from 64.17% to 66.47% with an average of 65.16% and this is close to a set with no repeat CombThrees, using all 49 integers and optimised coverage of 76.42%. The coverage for the Random Selections I nominated draws 1803 to 1859 in the UK Lotto game is 64.44%. By strong contrast using only 9 integers as in the 56 Line Pool 9 Key 1 wheel gives only a 7% coverage albeit with a main prize group of 10 CombThrees and at about 50% less likelihood 20 CombThrees.

Over 52 draws playing 56 lines per draw we can work out the likely results:

Random Selection sample:
3's 1x 18
3's 2x 9
3's 3x 3
4's 1x 1
Prizes/Cost = 1525/5824 = 26.18%

Pool 9 Key 1 Wheel

3's 10x 2
3's 20x 1
Prizes/Cost = 1000/5824 = 17.1%

[Colin Fairbrother]

56 Random Lines versus 56 Line 9 integer Key 1 Wheel
To run from 19/10/2013 to 16/4/2014

Draw 1863 Wednesday 30/10/2013 UK 6/49 Lotto result
20 23 26 29 34 41 Bonus 32

Random Selections using UK draws 1804 to 1859:

19/10/2013 No Wins
23/10/2013 1 x CombThree Win £25 10 18 41
26/10/2013 1 x CombThree Win £25 10 20 22
30/10/2013 2 x CombThree Wins £50 26 34 41, 29 34 41
[Cum Prizes]/[Cum Cost] 100/448 = 22.32% Loss £348

9 integer Key 1 Wheel using the same integers that Nicholas Carlin aka Nick UK used to contrive in past draws and brag about a highly unlikely in consecutive draws 10 CombFours with 30 CombThrees and in another draw 10 CombFours with 20 CombThrees:

No Wins to date
Loss £448

Random Selections ahead by £100

http://www.LottoToWin.com
http://www.ColinFairbrother.com
http://www.LottoPoster.com

[Colin Fairbrother]

Correction:

In my last post I wrote:

"9 integer Key 1 Wheel using the same integers that Nicholas Carlin aka Nick UK used to contrive in past draws and brag about a highly unlikely in consecutive draws 10 CombFours with 30 CombThrees and in another draw 10 CombFours with 20 CombThrees"

This should read:
9 integer Key 1 Wheel using the same integers that the lying, snivelling, con-artist Nicholas Carlin aka Nick UK, Nick the Thick and El Thicko used to contrive in past UK draws and brag about three wins of an extremely highly unlikely 10 CombFours with 30 CombThrees two of which were consecutive.

[Nick UK]

RGL's resident Troll - Herr Fuhrer Colin Fairbrother wrote..

<snip the lot>

Updated.. a Troll's deceit!..
http://trollsville.bravesites.com/

[Nick UK]

<comments embedded below>

RGLs resident Troll, Herr Fuhrer Fairbrother..
(aka the Blunder from Down-under) bawled..

>
> The notion that previous history is a guide to future drawings is pure
> occultist and numerology rubbish as pointed out in many articles I

> have written which are <snip>

And..

> history is utter bunkum and is really the stuff of numerology with
> their penchant for errant ersatz science, mathematics and statistics.

Plus..

> The reality is at every drawing everything is new and each integer has
> the same likelihood of being picked as any other integer.

Plus..

> It means no matter what the dubious claim when using Lotto history
> I have the wherewithal to shoot it down in flames. There is nothing to
> be gained over random selections using history <snip>

And this..

> For ordinary Lotto - history is irrelevant - the full pool of integers is
> available each draw - which means it's all in the luck of the draw.

Yet, after all that 'previous history' debunking, Fairbrother continues to
accuse me of trying to gain some advantage by selecting the nine numbers for
my pick-9 wheel, from the previous history!! He recently said this..

> Obviously, his 9 integer choice was based on appearance in previous draws

> which he thought would not be noticed.. <snip>

Duh! Even if I did use previous history, it is *Fairbrother* who debunks
using numbers based on previous history as he has clearly stated (above) so
what-the-fk difference would it make how I picked my nine numbers? You
cannot have it *both* ways.. asshole!

Herr Fuhrer rants interminably on and on and on and on and..

> For this 56 Line Pool 9 Pick 6 Key 1 Wheel the confidence trick lies in
> the 6if6 guarantee being only applicable to Pool 9 and if you do get 6
> integers correct the Key integer must be included. To then apply this
> guarantee to a Pool 49 Pick 6 Lotto game is utter absurdity and this

> is demonstrated in a table at <snip the remaining crap>
> Colin Fairbrother

Confidence trick? Huh? WTF?? My 56 com wheel is a straight forward, no
nonsense Lottery Director pick-9 wheel !! The wheel allows the player to
pick nine numbers (from 49) with one of those nine numbers nominated by the
player as his 'banker' number! The simple guarantee or 'if' factor applies
and it is this..

The 'Banker' number being in every one of the 56 combinations *must* appear
in the draw together with any five of the remaining eight numbers. If those
conditions are met then a jackpot win-size of 6 in one line is guaranteed
100%.

Now WTF is 'occultist' or 'voodooist' about that FFS? If a lotto player
wants to use that system, What-the-fk has it got to do with arrogant
assholes like Fuhrer Fairbrother?

What the stoopid git Fairbrother really wants is for all lotto players to
use only systems to which *he* approves and consents to!

Live and let live, Herr Fuhrer!
Arroganter Nazistischer Lügner!!

Nick UK

Ps: let's try again..

GO AWAY TROLL, YOU'RE NOT WANTED HERE!

Updated..
http://trollsville.bravesites.com/

[nigel]

Nick UK wrote:

>
>>It means no matter what the dubious claim when using Lotto history
>>I have the wherewithal to shoot it down in flames. There is nothing to
>>be gained over random selections using history <snip>
>

I just looked at CF's links. The articles claim they will show that
using past history to predict future results is bunkum, then they fail
to deliver.

Still, as long as bookies continue to believe...

Evil Nigel

[Nick UK]

<Comments embedded below>

Nigel (best pronounced 'niggle') niggled in error..

> Nick UK wrote:
>
>>It means no matter what the dubious claim when using Lotto history
>>I have the wherewithal to shoot it down in flames. There is nothing to
>>be gained over random selections using history <snip>
>

Hey Niggle! I wasn't responsible for writing that crap above. The credit for
that statement and a million others on Lotto history etc, goes to our
resident Troll.. Herr Fuhrer Fairbrother (aka The Blunder from Down Under).

You continued..

> I just looked at CF's links. The articles claim they will show that using
> past history to predict future results is bunkum, then they fail to
> deliver.
>

>Evil Nigel.

Exactly, Niggle!

Updated..
http://trollsville.bravesites.com/

[nigel]

nigel wrote:
>
> I just looked at CF's links.

Ugh. He bodged his page widths. I had to set IE to 75% to read the
articles. So now I've just reset it to 100% for normal use.

Evil Nigel

[Nick UK]

Nigel (best pronounced 'niggle') probably niggled Fairbrother, the Blunder
from Down Under by 'confessing'..

...................................................................

It's a fair (brother) bet Niggle, you've annoyed the Fuhrer by having your
IE page set at 100%!

No doubt any RGL subscriber who sets his IE page at 100% reading and *not*
complying with Herr Fuhrer's page widths, will probably be accused by Fuhrer
Fairbrother of being at least one of these..

an 'occultist'
a 'voodooist'
a 'liar'
a 'con-artist'
a 'thicko'

Colin Fairbrother
6 Monash Rd
Gladesville
Sydney
NSW,2111
AU
Tel. +61.02 9817 3267
Fax. +61.02 9816 1220

Updated..
http://trollsville.bravesites.com/