Free lotto-5, lotto-6, lotto-7 wheels & systems
Ion Saliu
saliu.com. The wheels (abbreviated systems) are compressed in three
self-extracting EXE files: SYSTEM6.EXE, WHEEL5.EXE, WHEEL7.EXE.
WHEEL5.EXE: Lotto-5 Wheels
SYS-9 35 = 9-number '3 of 5' wheel, 3 combinations
SYS-10 35 = 10-number '3 of 5' wheel, 6 combinations
SYS-11 35 = 11-number '3 of 5' wheel, 6 combinations
SYS-12 35 = 12-number '3 of 5' wheel, 12 combinations
SYS-13 35 = 13-number '3 of 5' wheel, 12 combinations
SYS-14 35 = 14-number '3 of 5' wheel, 13 combinations
SYS-15 35 = 15-number '3 of 5' wheel, 27 combinations
SYS-16 35 = 16-number '3 of 5' wheel, 35 combinations
SYS-17 35 = 17-number '3 of 5' wheel, 47 combinations
SYS-18 35 = 18-number '3 of 5' wheel, 51 combinations
SYS-19 35 = 19-number '3 of 5' wheel, 59 combinations
SYS-20 35 = 20-number '3 of 5' wheel, 71 combinations
WHEEL7.EXE: Lotto-7 Wheels
SYS-10 57 = 10-number '5 of 7' wheel, 3 combinations
SYS-11 57 = 11-number '5 of 7' wheel, 5 combinations
SYS-12 57 = 12-number '5 of 7' wheel, 11 combinations
SYS-13 57 = 13-number '5 of 7' wheel, 18 combinations
SYS-14 57 = 14-number '5 of 7' wheel, 27 combinations
SYS-15 57 = 15-number '5 of 7' wheel, 43 combinations
SYS-16 57 = 16-number '5 of 7' wheel, 63 combinations
SYS-17 57 = 17-number '5 of 7' wheel, 105 combinations
SYS-18 57 = 18-number '5 of 7' wheel, 154 combinations
SYS-19 57 = 19-number '5 of 7' wheel, 159 combinations
SYS-20 57 = 20-number '5 of 7' wheel, 253 combinations
SYS-20 57 = 20-number '5 of 7' wheel, 366 combinations
SYSTEM6.EXE: Lotto-6 Wheels
SYS-9 46 = 9-number '4 of 6' wheel, 3 combinations
SYS-10 46 = 10-number '4 of 6' wheel, 5 combinations
SYS10 46 = 10-number '4 of 6' wheel, 3 combinations
SYS-11 46 = 11-number '4 of 6' wheel, 11 combinations
SYS11 46 = 11-number '4 of 6' wheel, 5 combinations
SYS-12 46 = 12-number '4 of 6' wheel, 10 combinations
SYS12 46 = 12-number '4 of 6' wheel, 6 combinations
SYS-13 46 = 13-number '4 of 6' wheel, 23 combinations
SYS-14 46 = 14-number '4 of 6' wheel, 23 combinations
SYS-15 46 = 15-number '4 of 6' wheel, 31 combinations
SYS-16 46 = 16-number '4 of 6' wheel, 53 combinations
SYS-18 36 = 18-number '3 of 6' wheel, 20 combinations
SYS-18 46 = 18-number '4 of 6' wheel, 104 combinations
SYS18 46 = 18-number '4 of 6' wheel, 51 combinations
SYS-20 36 = 20-number '3 of 6' wheel, 30 combinations
SYS-20 46 = 20-number '4 of 6' wheel, 154 combinations
SYS-20 F1 = 20-number , 1 FAVORITE, '4 of 6' wheel, 59
combinations
SYS-20 F2 = 20-number , 2 FAVORITES, '4 of 6' wheel, 20
combinations
SYS-24 36 = 24-number '3 of 6' wheel, 74 combinations
SYS-24 46 = 24-number '4 of 6' wheel, 453 combinations
SYS-28 46 = 28-number '4 of 6' wheel, 570 combinations
SYS-30 36 = 30-number '3 of 6' wheel, 115 combinations
SYS-30 46 = 30-number '4 of 6' wheel, 974 combinations
SYS-30 F1 = 30-number , 1 FAVORITE, '4 of 6' wheel, 241
combinations
SYS-30 F2 = 30-number , 2 FAVORITES, '4 of 6' wheel, 48
combinations
WHEEL42 36 = 42-number '3 of 6' wheel, 252 combinations
WHEEL45 36 = 45-number '3 of 6' wheel, 304 combinations
WHEEL49 36 = 49-number '3 of 6' wheel, 416 combinations
WHEEL51 36 = 51-number '3 of 6' wheel, 477 combinations
WHEEL54 36 = 54-number '3 of 6' wheel, 575 combinations
WHEEL69 36 = 69-number '3 of 6' wheel, 1298 combinations
CDEX49 36 = 49-number 'random generation', 416 combinations
(created by Joe Roberts-CDEX)
GENER 49 = 49-number 'random generation', 416 combinations,
using
the random number generator at http://www.saliu.com/generator.html
Both random combination sets beat any wheel of equal parameters as far
as higher prizes are concerned.
• Use SHUFFLE.EXE or FORMULA.EXE to shuffle (randomly arrange) your
picks. Repeat the randomizing procedure several times.
•• Use FillWheel.exe to 'wheel' your picks; i.e. replace the
theoretical numbers in the SYS/WHEEL files by your picks.
We was posting seriously on the wheels in 2000. I created a 49-number
‘3 of 6' lotto wheel: WHEEL49.36 (416 combinations). I thought it
would perform better than any random set with the same amount of
combinations. Quote:
"Essentially, I said that WHEEL49.36 always performs better because it
is a system. That is, all the combinations are linked by certain
rules.
I explained how important it is to have balanced frequencies of the
numbers taken individually. I also explained how important is to have
a
good balance of the pairs. The statistical balance is the main reason
why I didn't even bother to check my wheel against more real drawing
data files."
That wheel (WHEEL49.36) had a quick ‘5-winner' hit in a lottery. It
also performed better in the short run in other lotteries. One
rec.gambling.lottery regular, Joe Roberts-CDEX created a random set
(albeit not entirely random!): CDEX49.36. He challenged WHEEL49.36 to
a test. Another r.g.l. old-timer, Nick Koutras tested both "wheels"
and wrote:
"If we use real payoffs (3-w=10$, 4-win=70$, 5-win=1722$) and using
the Saliu Design we shall generate more profit by 5.3236081% than
using the Random Design."
I changed my position diametrically. So did Joe Roberts. I would give
Joe full credit, but his original opinion was motivated only by being
opposite to mine. Then he also diametrically changed his opinion, only
because I changed mine diametrically! He now believes that the wheels
perform better as compared to random sets of equal size. I changed my
opinion based on facts, specifically based on data analysis. I have
checked the wheels and random sets against more data files (real draws
files) and larger data files.
I tested WHEEL49.36, CDEX49.36, and GENER.49 against the UK lotto-6
draw file (without bonus number). My UK-6 file has 758 draws. The
three test wheels consist of 416 combinations each.
WHEEL49.36: 0 ‘6 hits', 5 ‘5 hits', 308 ‘4 hits', 5625 ‘3 hits';
CDEX49.36: 0 ‘6 hits', 8 ‘5 hits', 323 ‘4 hits', 5493 ‘3 hits';
GENER.49: 0 ‘6 hits', 9 ‘5 hits', 333 ‘4 hits', 5549 ‘3 hits';
It is clear that the real wheel (WHEEL49.36) performs better only in
regards to the guarantee it was designed for: ‘3 of 6'. The random
sets, however clearly perform better in the higher prize categories.
For a mathematical explanation read:
http://www.saliu.com/wheel.html
http://www.saliu.com/bbs/messages/11.html
You cannot use LotWon, SuperPower or MDIEditor and Lotto to generate
test sets. Like the universal random number generator at
www.saliu.com, LotWon enables a group of data-independent internal
filters. In addition, LotWon employs some data-dependent internal
filters automatically. Therefore, the combination sets may not have
any hit in a past draw file. It will have far better results in future
draws, however. It is recommended to run the combination generators
several times before using a combination set. If you run the universal
random number generator at www.saliu.com a few hundred times, the
probability to hit higher prizes is undoubtedly higher.
Download the free lotto-5, lotto-6, and lotto-7 wheels from the FTP
Download site:
http://www.saliu.com/infodown.html
You can also download some of my free programs from WinSite. If
clicking on the following links doesn't work in your browser, then
copy the link and paste it into the address box of your browser.
FORMULA.EXE from WinSite.com:
http://dl.winsite.com/bin/downl?win95/education/Formula.exe|0|14500000036893
COMBINATIONS.EXE from WinSite.com:
http://dl.winsite.com/bin/downl?winxp/education/Combinations.exe|0|15000000036444
Ion Saliu
http://www.saliu.com/
CDEX
No, Ion.
In 2000 you posted your (quoting you) "optimized" 416-line wheel for which
you claimed "3 times as many 5-number wins" as any other 416 lines in a 6/49
game.
Several people asked you for your proof in real games, using real game
histories. You stated that you did not use game histories, and that the
proof was in the internal matching inside your 416 lines.
In reply, it was given to you that the total matching remains the same in
any set of 416 lines: i.e. the duplicates compensate for the holes, and
that fact has been established for years. You ignored that information.
Finally Robert Perkis asked you to substantiate your claim with some proof.
Your only response to Robert was to call him a (quoting you) "old, stinking
sucker".
That was when I joined the conversation.
- - -
I gave you a set of 416 lines generated as follows:
... take every combination at the multiple of index (13,983,816/416).
Simple as that.
Not a "CDEX49 wheel" as you persisted in calling it then, and still do.
They were simply 416 combinations, pure and simple. Equally spaced
throughout the 13,983,816.
- - -
I even suggested a way for you to reproduce those 416 lines. I did it so
you would see how unbiased it is, and also how unrelated it is to anybody or
to any software.
You need a Capuchin monk, a scroll of parchment, a quill pen and ink, an
electric drill and a 1/4-inch drill bit. The process is:
... Have the Capuchin monk write down all 13,983,816 combinations on the
parchment, one line at a time, equally spaced.
... Fold the parchment so that exactly 416 pages are made.
... Take the electric drill, and drill a hole down through the stack of
416 pages.
... Open the pages, and play the combination alongside the hole on each
page.
... You will now have 416 combinations.
Simple as that.
Nothing could be fairer to you for comparing against your "optimized" 416
combinations.
- - -
Next:
I used real games.
I compared your "optimized" 416 lines against those plain old 416 lines,
using real games.
I used the complete databases of sixteen (16) public 6/49 Lotto games in
Canada, France, Germany, Israel, Spain, UK, and USA.
Those tests encompassed a total of 15,114 draws, covering the entire
histories of those 16 games.
Prizes were matched at the 3-, 4-, 5-, and 6-number levels.
6-number matches were ignored, as they would have skewed the data.
... anyway, your "optimized" lines did not score any 6-number matches.
... the basic lines did score one (1) 6-number match, and it was
ignored.
I gave you a detailed report, with all of the data.
Nothing could have been fairer to you.
You ignored that report then, and you ignore it now.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Summary:
The difference between your "optimized" 416 lines and that plain set of 416
lines was:
... The difference in total prizes matched: 0.696 percent.
... The difference in total prize money won: 0.467 percent.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Folks who are interested in reading the detailed results can find them in
the following RGL article:
From: "CDEX" <cd...@mediaone.net>
Subject: 416-line Wheel: Wrap-Up
Date: 2000/07/04
Message-ID: <q_c85.34190$Fe4.2...@typhoon.jacksonville.mediaone.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 23:37:58 EDT
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.lottery
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Ion:
Subsequent to the above report you concluded that Robert Perkis and I are
the same person. That was much in the same way as you currently conclude
that several other people are one and the same person.
You could easily have just presented your current wheels today, on their own
merit. There was no need to revert to your schizoid nonsense from nearly
three years ago.
... I don't care which of your split personas you light upon for posting
your material.
... However if you choose to drop my name personally into one of your
posts, try to choose one of your more honest personas if possible.
Good luck with your current wheeling. I suggest you try to present systems
on their own merits, posting your technical criteria, and avoid trying to
simulate other people.
Joe Roberts
CDEX
Ion Saliu
numbers: hits (wins) by various lotto-6 combination sets.
You worry me now. Please stay away from that electrical drill. Don't
punch holes in that monkey quilt! Use instead my freeware
COMBINATIONS.EXE to generate combinations in steps. CDEX.49 (it
deserves to bear your name) is a lotto 6/49 generation with a step
equal to 33614. Using another free program of mine, DRAWINDEX.EXE, we
can see the indexes of every combination in CDEX.49.
Lotto-6 Draw Lexicographical Order
File: CDEX.49 ~ Date: 04-28-2003
Game Type: 49 / 6
Total Combinations: 13,983,816
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Line D R A W Lexicographical
no. Order
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1: 1 2 3 4 5 6 1
2: 1 2 5 11 15 47 33,615
3: 1 2 8 10 11 25 67,229
4: 1 2 11 20 39 41 100,843
5: 1 2 16 22 38 41 134,457
6: 1 2 26 28 34 45 168,071
7: 1 3 5 19 39 40 201,685
8: 1 3 8 17 42 49 235,299
9: 1 3 12 14 39 47 268,913
10: 1 3 17 22 32 47 302,527
11: 1 3 29 33 46 48 336,141
12: 1 4 7 11 20 31 369,755
13: 1 4 10 18 20 25 403,369
14: 1 4 14 29 38 42 436,983
15: 1 4 22 24 35 42 470,597
16: 1 5 7 9 26 27 504,211
17: 1 5 10 15 27 44 537,825
18: 1 5 14 24 29 42 571,439
19: 1 5 21 32 36 39 605,053
20: 1 6 8 10 13 49 638,667
21: 1 6 11 21 23 40 672,281
22: 1 6 16 23 25 34 705,895
23: 1 6 26 28 44 47 739,509
24: 1 7 10 15 25 47 773,123
25: 1 7 14 24 27 41 806,737
26: 1 7 21 32 33 39 840,351
27: 1 8 10 14 32 40 873,965
28: 1 8 14 22 40 43 907,579
29: 1 8 21 29 35 42 941,193
30: 1 9 11 16 28 41 974,807
31: 1 9 16 18 19 24 1,008,421
32: 1 9 25 27 35 45 1,042,035
33: 1 10 13 26 28 37 1,075,649
34: 1 10 20 21 26 45 1,109,263
35: 1 11 12 28 34 44 1,142,877
36: 1 11 18 24 34 48 1,176,491
37: 1 11 39 42 44 47 1,210,105
38: 1 12 18 29 36 44 1,243,719
39: 1 13 14 16 31 39 1,277,333
40: 1 13 20 33 39 40 1,310,947
41: 1 14 16 25 31 35 1,344,561
42: 1 14 26 33 36 45 1,378,175
43: 1 15 21 26 44 46 1,411,789
44: 1 16 19 25 32 49 1,445,403
45: 1 17 18 35 36 45 1,479,017
46: 1 18 19 24 38 47 1,512,631
47: 1 19 21 22 31 49 1,546,245
48: 1 20 24 30 37 44 1,579,859
49: 1 21 37 41 48 49 1,613,473
50: 1 24 25 28 33 38 1,647,087
51: 1 27 29 35 38 44 1,680,701
52: 2 3 4 7 12 16 1,714,315
53: 2 3 6 19 36 37 1,747,929
54: 2 3 9 24 26 46 1,781,543
55: 2 3 13 28 35 43 1,815,157
56: 2 3 20 22 40 43 1,848,771
57: 2 4 5 15 22 36 1,882,385
58: 2 4 8 13 37 40 1,915,999
59: 2 4 11 30 36 40 1,949,613
60: 2 4 16 36 39 43 1,983,227
61: 2 4 27 36 40 43 2,016,841
62: 2 5 8 11 37 41 2,050,455
63: 2 5 11 24 39 43 2,084,069
64: 2 5 16 27 35 48 2,117,683
65: 2 5 26 41 42 43 2,151,297
66: 2 6 9 13 29 35 2,184,911
67: 2 6 13 15 27 49 2,218,525
68: 2 6 18 42 45 49 2,252,139
69: 2 7 8 11 34 38 2,285,753
70: 2 7 11 24 35 47 2,319,367
71: 2 7 16 27 33 35 2,352,981
72: 2 7 26 39 46 47 2,386,595
73: 2 8 11 23 28 38 2,420,209
74: 2 8 16 25 36 49 2,453,823
75: 2 8 26 34 35 42 2,487,437
76: 2 9 12 30 31 32 2,521,051
77: 2 9 18 25 36 46 2,554,665
78: 2 10 11 12 14 22 2,588,279
79: 2 10 15 25 29 46 2,621,893
80: 2 10 23 43 45 46 2,655,507
81: 2 11 14 23 28 39 2,689,121
82: 2 11 21 30 33 47 2,722,735
83: 2 12 14 27 35 43 2,756,349
84: 2 12 22 23 27 47 2,789,963
85: 2 13 16 18 26 43 2,823,577
86: 2 13 25 28 35 36 2,857,191
87: 2 14 19 21 33 44 2,890,805
88: 2 15 16 23 39 46 2,924,419
89: 2 15 26 30 33 39 2,958,033
90: 2 16 23 24 44 49 2,991,647
91: 2 17 22 25 41 45 3,025,261
92: 2 18 23 24 29 32 3,058,875
93: 2 19 25 33 38 42 3,092,489
94: 2 20 34 43 48 49 3,126,103
95: 2 22 29 31 33 34 3,159,717
96: 2 25 26 27 44 46 3,193,331
97: 2 29 31 32 39 40 3,226,945
98: 3 4 6 8 14 35 3,260,559
99: 3 4 9 10 16 41 3,294,173
100: 3 4 12 28 37 39 3,327,787
101: 3 4 18 24 37 43 3,361,401
102: 3 4 39 44 46 49 3,395,015
103: 3 5 8 30 33 48 3,428,629
104: 3 5 12 23 35 39 3,462,243
105: 3 5 18 20 44 46 3,495,857
106: 3 5 34 39 41 44 3,529,471
107: 3 6 10 11 14 17 3,563,085
108: 3 6 14 17 21 47 3,596,699
109: 3 6 20 36 39 45 3,630,313
110: 3 7 8 30 31 39 3,663,927
111: 3 7 12 23 32 42 3,697,541
112: 3 7 18 20 38 49 3,731,155
113: 3 7 34 38 41 47 3,764,769
114: 3 8 12 22 27 34 3,798,383
115: 3 8 18 19 37 38 3,831,997
116: 3 8 33 38 46 49 3,865,611
117: 3 9 13 31 40 42 3,899,225
118: 3 9 20 24 35 41 3,932,839
119: 3 10 11 30 46 49 3,966,453
120: 3 10 16 37 41 44 4,000,067
121: 3 10 27 37 42 46 4,033,681
122: 3 11 15 28 39 40 4,067,295
123: 3 11 24 28 31 36 4,100,909
124: 3 12 15 38 40 49 4,134,523
125: 3 12 24 36 42 43 4,168,137
126: 3 13 17 25 26 32 4,201,751
127: 3 13 30 32 36 43 4,235,365
128: 3 14 21 23 24 38 4,268,979
129: 3 15 17 38 42 47 4,302,593
130: 3 15 32 39 41 43 4,336,207
131: 3 16 26 30 43 48 4,369,821
132: 3 17 25 27 43 44 4,403,435
133: 3 18 26 29 40 43 4,437,049
134: 3 19 31 32 36 39 4,470,663
135: 3 21 24 26 43 45 4,504,277
136: 3 23 24 33 34 38 4,537,891
137: 3 25 32 33 39 46 4,571,505
138: 3 30 39 42 46 47 4,605,119
139: 4 5 7 25 38 43 4,638,733
140: 4 5 11 14 40 44 4,672,347
141: 4 5 15 35 39 47 4,705,961
142: 4 5 24 34 37 47 4,739,575
143: 4 6 8 27 31 43 4,773,189
144: 4 6 12 21 41 43 4,806,803
145: 4 6 18 19 28 43 4,840,417
146: 4 6 33 36 42 49 4,874,031
147: 4 7 11 14 36 44 4,907,645
148: 4 7 15 35 36 38 4,941,259
149: 4 7 24 33 46 47 4,974,873
150: 4 8 11 14 17 34 5,008,487
151: 4 8 15 31 38 39 5,042,101
152: 4 8 24 30 42 46 5,075,715
153: 4 9 12 17 20 41 5,109,329
154: 4 9 17 26 37 41 5,142,943
155: 4 9 30 36 41 48 5,176,557
156: 4 10 14 34 44 46 5,210,171
157: 4 10 22 27 33 45 5,243,785
158: 4 11 13 34 38 49 5,277,399
159: 4 11 20 25 42 44 5,311,013
160: 4 12 14 16 20 39 5,344,627
161: 4 12 20 31 39 43 5,378,241
162: 4 13 15 21 26 45 5,411,855
163: 4 13 23 28 43 49 5,445,469
164: 4 14 18 21 24 49 5,479,083
165: 4 14 34 41 45 49 5,512,697
166: 4 15 24 28 29 30 5,546,311
167: 4 16 21 30 39 43 5,579,925
168: 4 17 20 40 45 49 5,613,539
169: 4 18 21 29 37 38 5,647,153
170: 4 19 23 34 36 49 5,680,767
171: 4 20 29 32 35 45 5,714,381
172: 4 22 26 29 40 49 5,747,995
173: 4 24 30 39 42 49 5,781,609
174: 4 28 31 39 46 48 5,815,223
175: 5 6 7 28 37 46 5,848,837
176: 5 6 11 16 19 40 5,882,451
177: 5 6 16 17 28 38 5,916,065
178: 5 6 25 26 36 37 5,949,679
179: 5 7 10 11 34 38 5,983,293
180: 5 7 14 18 23 40 6,016,907
181: 5 7 21 22 30 45 6,050,521
182: 5 8 10 11 16 33 6,084,135
183: 5 8 14 17 25 28 6,117,749
184: 5 8 20 37 41 45 6,151,363
185: 5 9 11 12 29 45 6,184,977
186: 5 9 15 26 43 46 6,218,591
187: 5 9 24 26 33 39 6,252,205
188: 5 10 13 19 28 36 6,285,819
189: 5 10 19 25 32 40 6,319,433
190: 5 11 12 20 37 39 6,353,047
191: 5 11 17 38 40 49 6,386,661
192: 5 11 32 38 47 48 6,420,275
193: 5 12 18 21 27 43 6,453,889
194: 5 12 35 36 37 38 6,487,503
195: 5 13 20 23 24 45 6,521,117
196: 5 14 16 19 20 34 6,554,731
197: 5 14 25 29 42 49 6,588,345
198: 5 15 20 32 34 36 6,621,959
199: 5 16 18 35 42 44 6,655,573
200: 5 17 18 23 32 49 6,689,187
201: 5 17 37 40 45 47 6,722,801
202: 5 19 20 25 37 47 6,756,415
203: 5 20 23 30 38 43 6,790,029
204: 5 21 32 34 45 49 6,823,643
205: 5 23 34 36 37 39 6,857,257
206: 5 26 39 43 44 45 6,890,871
207: 5 39 43 44 47 48 6,924,485
208: 6 7 11 18 25 40 6,958,099
209: 6 7 16 19 47 49 6,991,713
210: 6 7 25 32 38 43 7,025,327
211: 6 8 11 17 27 32 7,058,941
212: 6 8 16 19 20 26 7,092,555
213: 6 8 25 29 41 48 7,126,169
214: 6 9 12 21 27 30 7,159,783
215: 6 9 18 19 20 23 7,193,397
216: 6 9 33 34 37 47 7,227,011
217: 6 10 15 18 34 45 7,260,625
218: 6 10 23 24 34 38 7,294,239
219: 6 11 14 17 27 33 7,327,853
220: 6 11 20 38 40 48 7,361,467
221: 6 12 14 20 22 30 7,395,081
222: 6 12 21 25 26 31 7,428,695
223: 6 13 15 27 32 40 7,462,309
224: 6 13 24 26 42 44 7,495,923
225: 6 14 18 27 30 32 7,529,537
226: 6 15 16 17 37 40 7,563,151
227: 6 15 25 27 30 45 7,596,765
228: 6 16 22 25 37 42 7,630,379
229: 6 17 21 28 30 32 7,663,993
230: 6 18 22 25 26 32 7,697,607
231: 6 19 24 30 43 48 7,731,221
232: 6 20 31 32 41 45 7,764,835
233: 6 22 27 31 39 42 7,798,449
234: 6 24 33 36 38 41 7,832,063
235: 6 28 35 36 39 45 7,865,677
236: 7 8 10 14 16 32 7,899,291
237: 7 8 14 21 35 49 7,932,905
238: 7 8 21 27 35 42 7,966,519
239: 7 9 11 15 36 37 8,000,133
240: 7 9 16 17 21 32 8,033,747
241: 7 9 24 44 47 49 8,067,361
242: 7 10 13 24 35 47 8,100,975
243: 7 10 19 37 38 45 8,134,589
244: 7 11 12 26 37 46 8,168,203
245: 7 11 18 23 29 33 8,201,817
246: 7 11 37 39 40 43 8,235,431
247: 7 12 18 27 36 44 8,269,045
248: 7 13 14 15 41 42 8,302,659
249: 7 13 20 30 39 49 8,336,273
250: 7 14 16 24 25 34 8,369,887
251: 7 14 26 30 37 42 8,403,501
252: 7 15 21 25 31 42 8,437,115
253: 7 16 19 24 26 42 8,470,729
254: 7 17 18 31 41 47 8,504,343
255: 7 18 19 23 31 45 8,537,957
256: 7 19 20 38 40 48 8,571,571
257: 7 20 24 28 34 44 8,605,185
258: 7 21 36 37 43 48 8,638,799
259: 7 24 25 26 36 37 8,672,413
260: 7 27 29 31 45 47 8,706,027
261: 8 9 10 13 21 39 8,739,641
262: 8 9 14 20 32 34 8,773,255
263: 8 9 21 25 39 42 8,806,869
264: 8 10 12 17 30 37 8,840,483
265: 8 10 17 27 37 41 8,874,097
266: 8 10 30 40 48 49 8,907,711
267: 8 11 16 22 24 33 8,941,325
268: 8 11 26 27 32 33 8,974,939
269: 8 12 16 25 41 43 9,008,553
270: 8 12 26 34 39 40 9,042,167
271: 8 13 18 22 26 37 9,075,781
272: 8 13 35 42 46 47 9,109,395
273: 8 14 22 25 28 46 9,143,009
274: 8 15 18 30 34 39 9,176,623
275: 8 16 17 20 27 39 9,210,237
276: 8 16 28 37 40 49 9,243,851
277: 8 17 27 29 33 37 9,277,465
278: 8 18 28 35 36 38 9,311,079
279: 8 19 39 44 45 46 9,344,693
280: 8 21 25 38 39 44 9,378,307
281: 8 23 26 31 38 48 9,411,921
282: 8 26 27 31 34 41 9,445,535
283: 8 32 33 37 39 43 9,479,149
284: 9 10 14 18 38 43 9,512,763
285: 9 10 21 23 28 32 9,546,377
286: 9 11 13 18 35 37 9,579,991
287: 9 11 19 24 30 36 9,613,605
288: 9 12 13 21 32 46 9,647,219
289: 9 12 19 29 31 41 9,680,833
290: 9 13 14 27 35 43 9,714,447
291: 9 13 22 23 27 47 9,748,061
292: 9 14 17 22 27 36 9,781,675
293: 9 14 29 33 34 44 9,815,289
294: 9 15 22 32 39 47 9,848,903
295: 9 16 20 26 38 43 9,882,517
296: 9 17 19 34 37 46 9,916,131
297: 9 18 20 25 46 47 9,949,745
298: 9 19 22 26 27 30 9,983,359
299: 9 20 26 31 40 48 10,016,973
300: 9 22 24 28 32 46 10,050,587
301: 9 24 27 32 34 44 10,084,201
302: 9 27 35 36 48 49 10,117,815
303: 10 11 12 26 45 49 10,151,429
304: 10 11 18 23 32 42 10,185,043
305: 10 11 37 40 43 49 10,218,657
306: 10 12 18 27 43 44 10,252,271
307: 10 13 14 16 17 45 10,285,885
308: 10 13 20 31 33 34 10,319,499
309: 10 14 16 24 28 31 10,353,113
310: 10 14 26 30 44 49 10,386,727
311: 10 15 21 25 35 43 10,420,341
312: 10 16 19 24 29 42 10,453,955
313: 10 17 18 32 35 37 10,487,569
314: 10 18 19 23 35 46 10,521,183
315: 10 19 20 39 43 45 10,554,797
316: 10 20 24 28 39 47 10,588,411
317: 10 21 36 38 45 47 10,622,025
318: 10 24 25 26 42 43 10,655,639
319: 10 27 29 32 36 46 10,689,253
320: 11 12 13 16 44 49 10,722,867
321: 11 12 19 21 37 39 10,756,481
322: 11 13 14 20 41 43 10,790,095
323: 11 13 21 26 30 32 10,823,709
324: 11 14 16 37 40 45 10,857,323
325: 11 14 27 37 41 46 10,890,937
326: 11 15 22 23 30 42 10,924,551
327: 11 16 19 37 45 46 10,958,165
328: 11 17 19 24 26 27 10,991,779
329: 11 18 19 35 38 42 11,025,393
330: 11 19 21 29 45 48 11,059,007
331: 11 20 25 30 31 38 11,092,621
332: 11 22 23 29 36 47 11,126,235
333: 11 24 26 29 31 41 11,159,849
334: 11 27 31 37 38 46 11,193,463
335: 12 13 14 23 46 49 11,227,077
336: 12 13 21 31 38 46 11,260,691
337: 12 14 17 19 37 40 11,294,305
338: 12 14 28 34 40 44 11,327,919
339: 12 15 22 27 31 49 11,361,533
340: 12 16 20 23 29 41 11,395,147
341: 12 17 19 28 31 42 11,428,761
342: 12 18 20 22 37 45 11,462,375
343: 12 19 21 41 45 49 11,495,989
344: 12 20 25 42 44 46 11,529,603
345: 12 22 23 39 43 49 11,563,217
346: 12 24 26 38 39 43 11,596,831
347: 12 27 33 35 37 46 11,630,445
348: 13 14 15 31 32 44 11,664,059
349: 13 14 24 30 35 40 11,697,673
350: 13 15 20 23 33 39 11,731,287
351: 13 16 18 24 42 48 11,764,901
352: 13 16 40 42 44 47 11,798,515
353: 13 17 32 39 43 45 11,832,129
354: 13 18 38 42 46 47 11,865,743
355: 13 20 22 36 37 39 11,899,357
356: 13 21 30 31 36 46 11,932,971
357: 13 23 31 33 40 46 11,966,585
358: 13 26 33 36 37 45 12,000,199
359: 13 35 40 41 42 43 12,033,813
360: 14 15 23 43 46 49 12,067,427
361: 14 16 21 26 41 44 12,101,041
362: 14 17 20 31 38 46 12,134,655
363: 14 18 21 26 28 29 12,168,269
364: 14 19 23 29 30 43 12,201,883
365: 14 20 28 35 38 49 12,235,497
366: 14 22 25 38 42 46 12,269,111
367: 14 24 30 31 34 45 12,302,725
368: 14 28 30 40 45 47 12,336,339
369: 15 16 18 39 40 47 12,369,953
370: 15 17 18 24 29 35 12,403,567
371: 15 17 38 43 46 47 12,437,181
372: 15 19 20 26 36 38 12,470,795
373: 15 20 23 32 34 36 12,504,409
374: 15 21 32 37 45 46 12,538,023
375: 15 23 34 39 44 49 12,571,637
376: 15 26 44 45 46 49 12,605,251
377: 15 42 43 44 47 49 12,638,865
378: 16 17 32 44 46 49 12,672,479
379: 16 18 39 43 44 45 12,706,093
380: 16 20 22 37 43 48 12,739,707
381: 16 21 30 32 35 49 12,773,321
382: 16 23 31 34 43 46 12,806,935
383: 16 26 33 37 44 49 12,840,549
384: 16 35 41 44 46 49 12,874,163
385: 17 19 20 21 24 35 12,907,777
386: 17 20 23 24 28 31 12,941,391
387: 17 21 30 34 45 47 12,975,005
388: 17 23 31 38 48 49 13,008,619
389: 17 26 34 35 44 46 13,042,233
390: 17 36 38 39 40 45 13,075,847
391: 18 20 22 27 28 30 13,109,461
392: 18 21 28 38 41 47 13,143,075
393: 18 23 29 37 47 49 13,176,689
394: 18 26 31 34 37 47 13,210,303
395: 18 34 37 39 48 49 13,243,917
396: 19 21 24 27 40 45 13,277,531
397: 19 23 24 34 44 48 13,311,145
398: 19 25 32 35 41 43 13,344,759
399: 19 30 42 45 47 49 13,378,373
400: 20 22 23 30 31 42 13,411,987
401: 20 24 26 29 37 45 13,445,601
402: 20 27 31 38 42 48 13,479,215
403: 21 22 24 31 39 43 13,512,829
404: 21 24 27 38 42 47 13,546,443
405: 21 27 37 38 42 45 13,580,057
406: 22 23 27 30 37 44 13,613,671
407: 22 26 28 31 37 44 13,647,285
408: 22 32 36 45 48 49 13,680,899
409: 23 26 29 33 43 45 13,714,513
410: 23 33 35 40 45 49 13,748,127
411: 24 28 30 32 37 45 13,781,741
412: 25 26 39 45 47 48 13,815,355
413: 25 40 41 42 43 44 13,848,969
414: 26 39 43 44 45 46 13,882,583
415: 28 30 34 36 37 39 13,916,197
416: 30 32 37 38 42 45 13,949,811
Best of luck to you!
Ion Saliu
The freeware is available from:
http://www.saliu.com/infodown.html
CDEX
Tip 1: Do not drop my name into your posts and misrepresent what I have
publicly posted here.
Tip 2: You probably should not do that for anybody else, either.
You take so many zigzags in your logic it becomes comical trying to quantify
your illusion/integrity quotient. Simply do this:
... Leave my name out of your garbage. Thank you.
Here is your reality.
1. You promoted your 416-line wheel as providing 3 times as many 5-number
wins as any other equally-sized set of lines, in any worldwide lottery.
When questioned you responded with personal insults. Your posts are
reproduced below.
2. Following the proof that your 416-line wheel was worthless, you took
your 180-degree turn and concluded that all wheels are worthless because
they accelerate the player's losses. That is utterly incorrect.
3. It was patiently pointed out to you that wheeling has three benefits:
on the parimutuel; in money management; and in taxation where lottery
winnings are taxable, as they are in the USA at the federal level and in
many states. You never responded.
4. Finally you are back again with a brand new set of wheels. You could
have simply presented them, as a fresh start. Instead you dredge up your
3-year-old misrepresentations of wheels. Please don't do it again.
It's analogous to your 180-turns on lottery odds. First you proclaimed that
the officially-posted odds for several hundred public lottery games (which
you called 'bureaucratic odds' were wrong, and your odds calculations were
correct. Then you reversed yourself and decided that the official odds were
correct after all.
Your technique is rather well understood. You post material claiming it as
your breakthrough invention. You're questioned on it, and respond with
personal insults, word-twisting, and name-games. Other people take the time
and effort to dig out the data for you -- which you should have done
yourself, but failed to do. When you cannot disagree any longer with the
data, you term it all a joke. And you pander to the people who have
challenged your nonsense.
Zigzag all you want. Just leave my name out of your ramblings on the
outskirts of reality. Thank you.
Here are your original posts about your 416-line wheel.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(A) Your original post in RGL:
From: Cartin (cartinN...@iwon.com.invalid)
Subject: 49-Number Wheel, '3if6' + '4if6'
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.lottery
Date: 2000/06/18
. Now available: the complete 49-number lotto-6 wheel
with the minimum guarantee '3 out of 6'. It offers 4
winners quite often (about 1 in 2 cases). The system
however is static. Read one of my previous posts:
"Lotto Systems: Static and Dynamic" (Ion Saliu, 10/99).
The superior method is to dynamically wheel all
the numbers in a lotto game. Use WHEEL-6.EXE or
WHEEL-5.EXE for the task. Read more info on the
message board.
...
Ion Saliu
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(B) Robert Perkis replied:
From: Robert Perkis (robe...@gate.net)
Subject: Re: 49-Number Wheel, '3if6' + '4if6'
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.lottery
Date: 2000/06/19
I give up Ion, I've examined this wheel and
don't understand what you are trying to show us.
The results show it to be a bloated 3if6in49n416c
wheel which guarantees only one 3# prize.
Doesn't matter if it got a 4# win 40 times out of
100 draws, it should do that roughly every 1,032
tickets purchased, or every two to three drawings.
The five number wins are good luck or it is possible
in a wheel this oversized from normal bounds to make
a set of several five number win combinations from
every U.S. Pick-6 game's recent history. Not that
I am suggesting for a moment this is what was done,
happenstance is more then enough to give good odds
of a five number win or two. Is it tight, or full?
;-)
So what makes this wheel special?
Thanks, Robert Perkis
T On M Tested Covered % Uncovered %
-----------------------------------------------------------------
2 On 2 : 1,176 1,176 100.00000 0 0.00000
2 On 3 : 18,424 18,424 100.00000 0 0.00000
(snip rest of table showing wheel's performance)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(C) You responded to Robert.
You responded with two messages.
They are:
From: Cartin (cartinN...@iwon.com.invalid)
Subject: Re: 49-Number Wheel, '3if6' + '4if6'
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.lottery
Date: 2000/06/19
. So, why don't U just check it, Bobby?
Or, is there any jealousy that impedes U,
little sucker?
What the heck happened to U, baby77?
Put up one of your systems and let everybody
see how they fare. Or, actually, U don't have a
SYSTEM, after all!... None at all...
There are many lotto-6 sites U list. They also
have a list of drawings. So, it would have been
really easy to check it on UR own, before
embarassing URself.
U ........ now.
Ion Saliu
Old suckers really stink...
Just stay away from me ...
IS
From: Cartin (cartinN...@iwon.com.invalid)
Subject: Re: 49-Number Wheel, '3if6' + '4if6'
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.lottery
Date: 2000/06/19
Bobby:
. O, baby, it really disgusts me! Whatever
happened to U? U really wanted that U had
exclusive rights on the lottery software
I sent U? I can see U already used one of my
systems (9-number, 4if5) and U gave no due credit.
Is that what bothers U, little gavroche
(thief, etc.).?
So, why do U feel so bad if people check systems?
U know, if people check the 49-number wheel on
various WORLD lotteries, old, stinking sucker,
the wheel will show at least 3 out of 100
'5 winners' regardless of the lottery, baby!
Some might even report the jackpot, baby!
Stand up sanely, baby! I don't want
anyone faint, baby!
Ion Saliu
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Ion,
No one picked on you. Don't go paranoid on it.
You wrote (quote):
"There are many lotto-6 sites U list.
They also have a list of drawings.
So, it would have been really easy
to check it on UR own, before
embarassing URself."
You also wrote (quote):
"U know, if people check the 49-number wheel
on various WORLD lotteries, old, stinking sucker,
the wheel will show at least 3 out of 100
'5 winners' regardless of the lottery, baby!"
(end quote)
No one picked on you. You invited testing of your wheel in public lottery
games.
That test was done. The results were given to you.
They are summarized below.
- - -
You should average a bit less than one (1) 5-number match per 100 draws,
playing 416 lines in steady play in a 6/49 game.
You should _not_ average (quoting you) "at least 3 out of 100 '5 winners'"
(end quote).
Your claim was tested in real 6/49 games.
Your 416 lines were matched against 15,114 draws in sixteen (16) public
lottery 6/49 games. Those were the entire histories of drawings in those
games.
The sixteen games were:
... British Columbia 6/49 (874 Draws @ 06/10/2000)
... Canada National 6/49 (1710 Draws @ 06/10/2000)
... France Apres-Midi 6/49 (1016 Draws @ 06/03/00)
... France Nuit 6/49 (2102 Draws @ 06/03/2000)
... Germany Samstag 6/49 (2293 Draws @ 05/27/2000)
... Israel 6/49 (306 Draws @ 05/30/00)
... Maryland 6/49 (1022 Draws @ 06/17/00)
... Massachusetts 6/49 (964 Draws @ 06/15/00)
... Michigan 6/49 (680 Draws @ 06/17/2000)
... Ontario 6/49 (282 Draws @ 06/10/00)
... Quebec 6/49 (282 Draws @ 06/10/00)
... Spain Bonoloto 6/49 (1339 Draws @ 06/02/2000)
... United Kingdom 6/49 (466 Draws @ 06/10/2000)
... Washington 6/49 (1004 Draws @ 06/17/2000)
... Western Canada 6/49 (139 Draws @ 06/10/00)
... Wisconsin 6/49 (835 Draws @ 06/17/00)
Below is the summary of total prizes matched in all of those games.
Here you see the total prizes matched for the "Basic" 416 lines, and for
your "Optimized" 416 lines.
Total prizes matched in the 16 games (15,114 draws) were:
Basic Optimized
--------- ---------
Matching 5: 110 111
Matching 4: 6182 6155
Matching 3: 112989 112191
---------- ---------
119281 118457
The difference in total prizes matched is: 0.696 percent.
The difference between the "Basic" lines and your "Optimized" lines is
negligible.
- - -
In addition, total dollar amounts were calculated for the prizes, using the
current Canada data as the norm.
Total dollar amounts won were:
Basic Optimized
-------------- --------------
Matching 5: $ 128,338.10 $ 129,504.81
Matching 4: 292,717.70 291,439.25
Matching 3: 764,935.53 759,533.07
-------------- --------------
$ 1,185,991.33 $ 1,180,477.13
The difference in total prize money is: 0.467 percent.
The difference between the "Basic" lines and your "Optimized" lines is
negligible.
- - -
Now, Ion:
Note again your claim that your "Optimized" lines would show (quote) "at
least 3 out of 100" '5 winners'.
You posted it in your insult to Robert Perkis (quoted above).
... Your "Optimized" 416 lines _did not_ produce "at least 3 out of
100" such prizes in "various WORLD lotteries" as you claimed for them.
... Playing 416 lines for 15,114 draws would average 116 such prizes.
... Your "Optimized" lines produced 111.
... The plain basic lines produced 110.
You did not even come close to the performance you bragged about.
You merely twaddled around the vicinity of random expectation.
Your claim was proved false.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Ion,
This stuff is three years old. Nobody wants to review this stuff anymore.
You absolutely should not have dredged it up in your RGL post yesterday.
I only suggest this to you:
... Make a fresh start with new ideas.
... If you want to post some new system, try to describe it solely on
its own merit.
... Don't drop my personal name into your material. It does you no
good.
There are people in the field of game analysis and wheeling whose candor and
objectivity I respect. I count none of your heads among them.
Joe Roberts
CDEX
Ion Saliu
Blessed be the days when you have admonished me for I have gained new
strengths in my humility!
Blessed be the days when you shout at me for it is my badge of honour!
Blessed be your righteous anger for it is my source of inspiration!
Blessed be your wheels for they make our world go round!
Ion Saliu
The freeware is available from:
http://www.saliu.com/infodown.html
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
CDEX
Then leave it like this. Try to remember it in future.
Comments imbedded.
- - -
Ion Saliu wrote:
> Blessed be the day when I read your name
> for the first time!
... Do not drop my name into your material.
... Do not falsify what I have written, nor what others have written.
... Do not twist my name or combine it with others' names.
... Do not assume that people are anyone else than themselves.
> Blessed be the days when you have admonished me for I
> have gained new strengths in my humility!
... Then start by showing humility.
... Combine it with integrity when you quote or paraphrase others.
> Blessed be the days when you shout at me for it
> is my badge of honour!
... No one shouts at you.
... They give you data, based on hard work which they have done to
examine your material.
... It is the work which you failed to do before presenting your
material.
... It's data that is talking to you. Hear it.
> Blessed be your righteous anger for it is my source of inspiration!
... No one is angry.
> Blessed be your wheels for they make our world go round!
... Try joining with others into some project for bonafide wheel
improvement.
- - -
You might also consider that most of the things you 'invent' and promote
have already been around for many years. You have simply been unaware of
them.
For example, your 'Combinations' kind of program, which you mentioned today,
has existed at least since the days of Bill Dowling's 'Advanced Lotto Tools'
and Gary Olander's 'Let's Make a Wheel', as well as in other places.
Besides those programs, it's been available in Freeware since 1986, if not
before. Some of those programs generated your wheel, and also printed your
playslips. You don't need an electric drill and parchment to space your
combinations. You can use software. You only need to know that you are not
discovering that software. If you can stop focusing on yourself and start
looking around, a lot of people can benefit from improved tools.
Make a fresh start. Then remember you made that fresh start, and stick to
it.
Joe Roberts
CDEX
CDEX
Ion,
I am going to wrap this up by recapping the following nonsense which you
posted on 04/27/2003, and responding to it.
Comments embedded.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ion Saliu wrote (04/27/2003):
> I changed my position diametrically. So did Joe Roberts.
Ion: You are lying, or you are delusionally mistaken.
You have changed your position diametrically on several subjects, ranging
from lottery odds to lottery wheels.
Regarding wheels, the following is from your own posts in RGL.
... 1. First: you claimed to have produced a wheel which yields 3 times
as many 5-winners as random expectation in any 6/49 game worldwide (those
are your words).
... 2. Second: next, in your opinion, wheels do not work and they
merely increase the player's losses (those are your words).
... 3. Third: now, as of 04/27/2003, you are offering a set of
Abbreviated wheels.
... (You are ignoring the fact that Abbreviated wheels at a
world-class state of development can be downloaded, free of charge, at Web
sites listed in the RGL FAQ).
Those are your wheeling flip-flops.
Note: RGL has seen many wheels, wheel tests, and wheel improvements. Those
existed long before your posts. The RGL FAQ contains an extensive
description of wheeling contributed by a respected cover designer.
Apparently you have ignored those other sources. You seem to have groped
along on your own, non-communicative with other wheel designers. Then you
have produced routine output. Amidst your routine output you have claimed
to have found something new and innovative in each of your flip-flops on
this subject.
You have changed your opinion, all right. You have had to change it. You
have had to change it according to the data given to you by other people.
Your only responses to those people were to insult them personally.
Ion, note:
Regarding my 'position' on wheeling, which you utterly misrepresent above.
I have never 'changed my position' on wheeling. That 'position' (using your
term) existed long before you came along with your silly wheel fiasco.
I have given you the performance data on your wheel. I have also given you
a description of three demonstrable wheeling benefits to players, including
costs and prizes. All of that material was publicly posted in RGL and on
Web sites. You have gotten free help in RGL on wheeling subjects about
which you showed barely minimal knowledge.
My 'position' on wheeling has remained consistent because it is supported by
consistent data.
Other than admiring the signficant new progress which other people have
accomplished in improving wheels, my 'opinion' of wheeling remains the same
as published in RGL and at some Web sites.
And incidentally, that 'significant new progress' in wheeling specifically
excludes anything so far seen from you, Ion.
Ion: Your statement above is completely false.
You lie or you are mistaken.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ion Saliu wrote (04/27/2003):
> I would give Joe full credit, but his original opinion
> was motivated only by being opposite to mine.
Ion: You are lying, or you are delusionally mistaken.
You published your "optimum" wheel in this public forum. You specifically
invited testing of it.
You got your results. Remember?
You received data showing your wheel's performance in 15,114 drawings in
sixteen (16) major 6/49 games. Remember?
That data showed that your "optimum" wheel performed less than _0.7
percent_ differently than a plain set of lines, spaced equally apart
throughout the 6/49 game's combination space. In total prizes matched.
Remember?
That data also showed that your "optimum" wheel performed less than _0.5
percent_ differently than that plain set of lines, in total dollar amounts
won. Remember?
That data also showed that your "optimum" wheel performed at _5 percent
less_ than random expectation for 5-winners. Not at '3 times better' as
you claimed for it. Remember?
I also gave you data showing that those plain equally-spaced lines covered
_99.9587 percent_ of all 3-matches, making your "optimum" wheel a mere
_0.0413 percent_ improvement. Remember?
Robert Perkis also gave you similar data showing that your "optimized" wheel
resembled nothing more than a bloated 3if6 wheel, reminding you that you
could have covered those 3-matches in 163 lines then. Remember?
Ion, note:
Those data were not an 'opinion'. You misrepresent them. They were fact.
Those facts were irrefutable.
You did not refute them because you could not refute them. Remember?
You simply responded with name-calling and misquoting of other people.
Remember?
Join reality. I do not know anyone who is 'motivated' by being 'opposite'
to you.
When data is opposite to your 'opinion', you need to change your opinion.
And you did change it, of course. You had no choice. You simply came
closer to the data, amid your personal insults against the people who showed
you that data.
Ion: Your statement above is completely false.
You lie or you are mistaken.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ion Saliu wrote (04/27/2003):
> Then he also diametrically changed his opinion,
> only because I changed mine diametrically!
> He now believes that the wheels perform better
> as compared to random sets of equal size.
Ion: You are lying, or you are delusionally mistaken.
Read the information above again, about your wheel and the tests of its
performance. Your statement is completely false.
Ion: Your statement above is completely false.
You lie or you are mistaken.
- - -
> I changed my opinion based on facts, specifically
> based on data analysis. I have checked the wheels
> and random sets against more data files (real draws
> files) and larger data files.
Ion: You are not lying here, and you are not mistaken.
You changed your opinion because you were _given_ the data from other
people.
You did not work for your facts. You did not demonstrate that you knew how
to produce those facts.
... Had you known what work had preceded your material in RGL,
... And had you known how to test your wheel properly,
... You never would have given your kakameme wheel with your ridiculous
claim for it, in the first place.
All of these other people did your work for you.
1. You received a CoverMaster report showing the matches in your wheel,
from Robert Perkis.
2. You received a similar report showing the matches in your wheel, from
me.
3. You received a comparison of your wheel against random expectation,
from me.
4. You received a comparison of your wheel against grossly duplicated
combinations, from me.
5. You received a report analyzing your wheel's matches in 15,114 draws
in 16 lottery games, from me.
6. You received a Lotwin comparison against 333 draws and 277 draws in
the U.K. game, from Gerry.
Your _only_ response to each of those reports was: your personal attack
and insults against those people.
You _never_ acknowledged any of the data supplied to you. You ignored
that data.
You changed your opinion, all right.
Other people's hard work and their data changed it for you.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Now ...
You should have left it there, three years ago.
Now after three years:
You dredge up your old delusionary material,
and you re-post it on 04/27/2003.
You ignore the data that was given to you. You invent
thoughts of your own, which you ascribe to other people.
Here is your straight advice:
... Never, never drop my name again into one of your posts. Clear?
... Never again twist, misquote, or misrepresent my posts. Clear?
Go along your own zigzag path as you wish. Let others judge your state of
rationality and objectivity as they see it.
I am not your (quoting you) "old pal". I have absolutely zero regard for
the garbage you have posted here.
Understand: Throwing my personal name into one of your posts does you no
good. It costs you time, and it costs RGL readers in server space. It buys
you nothing.
If you cannot stay honest, rational and objective, stay clear. Thank you.
Joe Roberts
CDEX
- - -
P.S. to RGL:
I hope this will be the end of this exchange with Mr Saliu. Thank you for
tolerating it.
J.
Ion Saliu
of real combination sets, in a real draws file (UK-6):
“WHEEL49.36: 0 ‘6 hits', 5 ‘5 hits', 308 ‘4 hits', 5625 ‘3 hits';
CDEX49.36: 0 ‘6 hits', 8 ‘5 hits', 323 ‘4 hits', 5493 ‘3 hits';
GENER.49: 0 ‘6 hits', 9 ‘5 hits', 333 ‘4 hits', 5549 ‘3 hits';
It is clear that the real wheel (WHEEL49.36) performs better only in
regards to the guarantee it was designed for: ‘3 of 6'. The random sets,
however clearly perform better in the higher prize categories.”
I can’t see anything wrong with those findings. They can be replicated
by anybody, again, using another free program of mine: WINNERS.EXE.
Other draws files can be analyzed as well.
Your suffering has a natural cause. I wish I could help you with that,
too. Try meditation, seriously. Learn the art of breathing. Don’t take
it too seriously being Joytsar!
I know you can beat me in one thing only: Replying to my posts forever!
You want to have the last post, always! Meanwhile, we’d hear a sigh of
relief from you if I’d let your latest post go silent. You such a big
winna!
Best of luck to you! I mean it, old pal!
Ion Saliu
CDEX
You are welcome to take the 'last' word.
Just try to take it with honesty. You missed doing that again. See below.
Ion Saliu wrote:
> Joe, my old pal, you are in real pain!
Not at all.
I am in no pain at all, and never have been in your case. Just in pity.
Sincerely, for what appears to be wasted potential.
Ion, people can deal with you alacrity and član. It really is a piece of
cake. Why? Because your posts reek with ego instead of solid wheel work.
And because your wheel work, so far, is so trivial compared to others' work.
Bring your potential to the table and try to join and share with others in
the quest for efficient wheels and other systems. Everyone could benefit.
Everyone.
Take the last word if you like, I don't give a hoot. Just be sure to _not_
falsify what I have written or what other people have written. Thank you.
- - -
> I simply posted some real results of real
> combination sets, in a real draws file (UK-6):
No, you did not simply do that. Otherwise this exchange would not be in
this newsgroup.
You posted a personal reference to me, by my name. Try to remember. It was
two days ago.
You put my name personally, in your post. And you falsified (again) what
has been shown to you in pure, plain, data. That data was shown to you not
just by me, but also by two other persons.
You could have posted your own material only, and let it fly or crash on its
own merit. You did not do that.
You used my name directly, and you posted some of your own illogical
arguments as belonging to me, by name. Just try not to do that stuff.
Your words are totally false, as well as insulting.
That is shoddy and irresponsible posting. It is as devoid of decency and
ethics as it is of reality.
Again, I replied to you with data. It belongs to more than 16 lottery
games. It is true and accurate. You have to accept it. You have no
choice. You can accept it willingly or grudgingly. But you _cannot_ weasel
around with innuendoes about other people's opinions or motivations. Get
it? It is real game data.
You did not simply post 'results of combinations'. You got personal, and
you wrote complete falsehoods attributed to my name.
You do not have that option. That is what I have responded to.
Data catches you in your lying, or it shows you in your dream state.
Just avoid doing it again.
I find your material silly, trivial, and erroneous. Leave my name _out_
of it. Do _not_ connect me to it in any way.
Can this possibly be more clear to you now?
Thank you.
- - -
> "WHEEL49.36: 0 '6 hits', 5 '5 hits', 308 '4 hits', 5625 '3 hits';
> CDEX49.36: 0 '6 hits', 8 '5 hits', 323 '4 hits', 5493 '3 hits';
> GENER.49: 0 '6 hits', 9 '5 hits', 333 '4 hits', 5549 '3 hits';
> It is clear that the real wheel (WHEEL49.36) performs better only in
> regards to the guarantee it was designed for: '3 of 6'. The random
> sets, however clearly perform better in the higher prize categories."
Utterly wrong. After three years, Ion, you still don't see it.
You are testing your 416 lines in one game's data file -- only.
You are encouraged to use a far more extensive and relevant database. You
are encouraged to test your 416 lines in multiple games.
That would give you a more solid basis for any statement you care to make
about what is "better".
... And hopefully you would be aware and honest enough to include a
comparison against random expectation. Hopefully.
That kind of testing would also be more relevant to more lottery players,
many of whom who live outside the U.K.
Get it? More data, and universal testing. And as a result, more relevance.
Get it, Ion?
... Never, never make a blanket statement that "it is clear" that your
wheel "performs" better.
... It "performed" better in one game file. Only.
... Not in any other game file, and not relevant to any other player
anywhere else in the world.
Hopefully, Ion, you will study the following table. Hopefully in doing so
you will be objective.
Here are the results from the previous testing of your same wheel
(WHEEL49.36).
This testing is for the wheel which you are touting above as (quoting you)
"better" in "3 of 6" wins.
Here is how your same wheel performed in a total of sixteen (16) public
lottery 6/49 games, using their entire histories. The test covered a total
of 15,114 draws.
Here it is, Ion.
Basic Optimized
--------- ---------
Matching 5: 110 111
Matching 4: 6182 6155
Matching 3: 112989 112191
---------- ---------
119281 118457
The "Basic" set of plain old, equally-spaced 416 lines, scored more "3 of
6" wins that your silly "Optimized" WHEEL49.36.
... 112,989 to 112,191 wins.
You are encouraged to update those earlier tests. _Not_ to ignore that
data. And _not_ to substitute your one single game with 766 draws as
being proof of something "better".
It is getting tedious to ventilate the space around the bullshit you dump
here. Have a nice day, Ion.
- - -
>
> I can't see anything wrong with those findings.
No doubt about that.
> ...
> I know you can beat me in one thing only: Replying to
> my posts forever!
No wants to beat you.
> You want to have the last post, always!
No. You are wrong.
... I want you to post your lottery system material _without_ dropping
my name into it.
... I want you to stop falsifying and misrepresenting what I have
posted.
That is all.
Again, Ion: If you have original material to post, let it stand or fall on
its own merit.
That is exactly what any honest, credible wheel developer would do. You
would do it by instinct and integrity.
All I ask is this:
... Do _not_ drag my name into your material.
... You can be sure that if I see my name in your material, I will
respond to it accordingly.
... My experience with your material, so far, is that it is superficial,
trivial, incomplete, and misleading.
... You gain absolutely nothing by associating my name with it.
That is not too much to ask. Try to honor it.
CDEX
As a courtesy to you I have been sending you copies of my posts in this
thread, by E-mail.
They bounce back, because you are posting with an invalid address.
- - - - - - - -
Example:
The following addresses had delivery problems:
<isa...@onebox.com>
Permanent Failure: 551_(isa...@onebox.com) has been cancelled
Delivery last attempted at Tue, 29 Apr 2003 21:59:39 -0000
- - - - - - - -
You might at least post using a valid E-mail address.
Ion Saliu
> Ion Saliu wrote:
>
> > Joe, my old pal, you are in real pain!
>
> Not at all.
>
You are my old pal and nobody can change that. Meanwhile, I understand
I am not your old pal. Nobody can change that, either. Still a fair
deal to me.
Did you also know that today is Lighten-Up Day? What more fitting than
a joke. Repeat, the following is only a joke, Joe.
Two guys in a nightclub:
"Is that Hortense by the bar?"
"No. She looks pretty relaxed to me…"
Get it? Hor, eh? Tense, eh? Relaxed, eh?
Just relax, old pal!
Ion Saliu
All freeware presented in this thread is available for download:
http://www.saliu.com/infodown.html
Ion Saliu
> Ion,
>
> As a courtesy to you I have been sending you copies of my posts in this
> thread, by E-mail.
>
> They bounce back, because you are posting with an invalid address.
>
> - - - - - - - -
>
>
> CDEX
-----------
I ain't no junk collector!
IS
CDEX
Your use of my name in your trashy lottery material is not a joke.
I do not see any need to pursue this topic. The message should have gotten
across to you by now if you are a rational, ethical person.
Try to retain it, if you are able.
Joe Roberts
CDEX
- - - - - -
Ion Saliu wrote:
> ...
> Did you also know that today is Lighten-Up Day? What more
> fitting than a joke. Repeat, the following is only a joke, Joe.
>
> Two guys in a nightclub:
> "Is that Hortense by the bar?"
> "No. She looks pretty relaxed to me."
gARY
> . A number of lotto wheels are available to you for free from
> saliu.com. The wheels (abbreviated systems) are compressed in three
> self-extracting EXE files: SYSTEM6.EXE, WHEEL5.EXE, WHEEL7.EXE.
Are all these wheels your own work Ion? Only........
> WHEEL5.EXE: Lotto-5 Wheels
>
> SYS-9 35 = 9-number '3 of 5' wheel, 3 combinations
Take this one for ease of an example:-
> SYS-10 35 = 10-number '3 of 5' wheel, 6 combinations
It's a pick5 game right? And your software(?) made a 10number 3if5 in
6tickets?
Cos, if we take just these 2blocks:-
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10
I make it a 3if5 in 2tickets/combinations, even the one b4 "9-number" you
have at "3 combinations".
What am I missing in this given week of humour?
Good job your work is free, ;)
gARY
CDEX
> "CDEX" wrote:
>> Ion,
>>
>> As a courtesy to you I have been sending you copies
>> of my posts in this thread, by E-mail.
>>
>> They bounce back, because you are posting
>> with an invalid address.
>> Joe Roberts
>> CDEX
> -----------
>
> I ain't no junk collector!
> IS
Yes, but it means that everyone in RGL has to endure this waste of their
server space and bandwidth -- for an exchange between two people.
I welcome this topic being open to the entire world, if it offers anything
of value. But I doubt if many people want to keep reading this stuff.
A request was put to you three days ago. It doesn't have to drag out into a
thread.
... Stop dropping my name into your materials.
... It does not belong there, and you totally ignore the lottery facts
that have been given to you.
... I do not want to have any association with the material you offer.
You could just say "OK" and let it go. That would be a common courtesy.
I would appreciate knowing if this item is closed on that basis, or not.
My E-mail address is always real. You could use it.
Joe Roberts
CDEX
Ion Saliu
honest manner. They simply counted all the hits recorded by a wheel.
Probably the software they've been using can't distinguish between
different categories of wins (hits). That is ‘5 of 6' hits were
counted together with ‘3 of 6' hits. In the case I presented,
WHEEL49.36 recorded 5938 hits. The random set GENER.49 recorded 5891
hits. The wheelists jumped in joy! "See? The wheel beat the random set
by 47 hits!" But the wheels are used for the purpose of winning. Let's
consider the following prizes: $10 for ‘3 of 6'; $100 for ‘4 of 6';
$1000 for ‘5 of 6'.
WHEEL49.36 would win:
5625 x 10 = $56,250
308 x 100 = $30,800
5 x 1000 = $5,000
Total: $92,050
GENER.49 would win:
5549 x 10 = $55,490
333 x 100 = $33,300
9 x 1000 = $9,000
Total: $97,790
The random set performed better by $5,740.
Sometimes a random performs better than a wheel in any hit category. I
presented the issue in "The myth of lotto wheels or abbreviated lotto
systems":
http://www.saliu.com/bbs/messages/11.html
How 'bout the "world champion", the 163-combination wheel guaranteeing
100%+ '3 in 6'? Well, that wheel, too, followed closely the official
lotto odds: Total Hits: 0 '6 of 6'; 1 '5 of 6'; 104 '4 in 6'; 1872 '3
in 6'. A 57-combination random set produced, line for line, 117 '4 in
6'; 1905 '3 in 6'.
Of course, there are those with an interest in lotto wheels and
wheeling. They sell wheels on paper or wheeling software. Their
interest is to stress that the wheels offer a great advantage over
random play. There is no "great" in the equation; moreover, the
"advantage" is actually disadvantage!
There are also the "wheelists" as in "ufologists". Die-hard ufologists
will never conceive that UFOs do not exist. After all, they spent
their lives chasing UFOs! Die-hard wheelists cannot conceive that
lotto wheels do not present an advantage over random play. After all,
they spent their monies buying and playing lotto wheels!
A short explanation for this assessment founded on thorough data
analysis: Lotto is random; wheeling is less random, since the
combinations are hand-built.
Almighty Number reveals Itself through Randomness. Only randomness is
Almighty. Randomness is great.
Ion Saliu
More detailed materials plus wheels (!) and software can be found at:
http://www.saliu.com/
isa...@onebox.com (Ion Saliu) wrote in message news:<f2567897.03042...@posting.google.com>...
> ? A number of lotto wheels are available to you for free from
> ? Use SHUFFLE.EXE or FORMULA.EXE to shuffle (randomly arrange) your
> picks. Repeat the randomizing procedure several times.
>
> ?? Use FillWheel.exe to 'wheel' your picks; i.e. replace the
> theoretical numbers in the SYS/WHEEL files by your picks.
>
> We was posting seriously on the wheels in 2000. I created a 49-number
> ?3 of 6' lotto wheel: WHEEL49.36 (416 combinations). I thought it
> would perform better than any random set with the same amount of
> combinations. Quote:
>
> "Essentially, I said that WHEEL49.36 always performs better because it
> is a system. That is, all the combinations are linked by certain
> rules.
> I explained how important it is to have balanced frequencies of the
> numbers taken individually. I also explained how important is to have
> a
> good balance of the pairs. The statistical balance is the main reason
> why I didn't even bother to check my wheel against more real drawing
> data files."
>
> That wheel (WHEEL49.36) had a quick ?5-winner' hit in a lottery. It
> also performed better in the short run in other lotteries. One
> rec.gambling.lottery regular, Joe Roberts-CDEX created a random set
> (albeit not entirely random!): CDEX49.36. He challenged WHEEL49.36 to
> a test. Another r.g.l. old-timer, Nick Koutras tested both "wheels"
> and wrote:
>
> "If we use real payoffs (3-w=10$, 4-win=70$, 5-win=1722$) and using
> the Saliu Design we shall generate more profit by 5.3236081% than
> using the Random Design."
>
> I changed my position diametrically. So did Joe Roberts. I would give
> Joe full credit, but his original opinion was motivated only by being
> opposite to mine. Then he also diametrically changed his opinion, only
> because I changed mine diametrically! He now believes that the wheels
> perform better as compared to random sets of equal size. I changed my
> opinion based on facts, specifically based on data analysis. I have
> checked the wheels and random sets against more data files (real draws
> files) and larger data files.
>
> I tested WHEEL49.36, CDEX49.36, and GENER.49 against the UK lotto-6
> draw file (without bonus number). My UK-6 file has 758 draws. The
> three test wheels consist of 416 combinations each.
> WHEEL49.36: 0 ?6 hits', 5 ?5 hits', 308 ?4 hits', 5625 ?3 hits';
> CDEX49.36: 0 ?6 hits', 8 ?5 hits', 323 ?4 hits', 5493 ?3 hits';
> GENER.49: 0 ?6 hits', 9 ?5 hits', 333 ?4 hits', 5549 ?3 hits';
> It is clear that the real wheel (WHEEL49.36) performs better only in
> regards to the guarantee it was designed for: ?3 of 6'. The random
Ion Saliu
sending me a thank-you e-junk message!
IS
"CDEX" <cd...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<IVUra.708137$S_4.745894@rwcrnsc53>...
>
> I do not see any need to pursue this topic. The message should have gotten
> across to you by now if you are a rational, ethical person.
>
>
Ion Saliu
"OK". I ain't no e-junk collector!
IS
CDEX
Ion Saliu wrote:
> Some lotto wheels enthusiasts assessed the wheel
> performance in an honest manner. They simply counted
> all the hits recorded by a wheel. Probably the
> software they've been using can't distinguish
> between different categories of wins (hits).
> That is '5 of 6' hits were counted together
> with '3 of 6' hits.
Cite one case.
Cite one case where anyone has (quoting you) "simply counted all the hits",
without breaking your wheel down to its exact amount wins at each prize
level.
Cite one case of wheeling software which (quoting you) "can't distinguish
between different categories of wins (hits)".
If you can't cite a single case, you're lost in your own fog.
- - - - - - - -
> In the case I presented, WHEEL49.36 recorded 5938 hits.
> The random set GENER.49 recorded 5891 hits.
> The wheelists jumped in joy! "See? The wheel beat
> the random set by 47 hits!"
No one has done anything of the kind.
In fact no one has referred to your GENER.49 wheel, except you.
And the only reference to your other wheel, WHEEL49.36, was to show its
performance in _every_ "category of wins (hits)". The opposite of what you
have stated above.
Cite a case. If you can't, you're lost in your own fog.
- - - - - - - -
Let's look at this next part, Ion.
It's indicative of how you skim the surface of wheel creation, testing and
validation.
You wrote:
> But the wheels are used for the purpose of winning.
> Let's consider the following prizes: $10 for '3 of 6';
> $100 for '4 of 6'; $1000 for '5 of 6'.
> WHEEL49.36 would win:
> 5625 x 10 = $56,250
> 308 x 100 = $30,800
> 5 x 1000 = $5,000
> Total: $92,050
> GENER.49 would win:
> 5549 x 10 = $55,490
> 333 x 100 = $33,300
> 9 x 1000 = $9,000
> Total: $97,790
> The random set performed better by $5,740.
It's because you are using a tiny Lotto game database sample. One game,
with 766 draws out of a possible 13,983,816.
Try it in a different Lotto game database sample. Try a different set of
766 draws out of the possible 13,983,816.
The _only_ way you will get similar results would be if:
... Those two games happened to have _very similar_ histories of 766
draws
... That is, very nearly all the same combinations would have been drawn
in those two games.
... Even if they're separated by thousands of miles, and use different
mechanics in the drawing process.
Hopefully some day you'll see it. Then you'll move on to _real_ wheeling.
But wait, there's more. You'll love it.
Your tiny game database sample presents you with a large percentage
difference in 5-number matches (see above -- 5 of them, compared to 9 of
them).
Use a different game database, and those 5-number matches may reverse. So
will your results.
In tiny samples, most often, you'll see the gross percentage differences at
the prize levels with the higher dollar amounts (i.e., the 5-number
matches). Why? Because there are fewer of them. Less differences at the
lower levels.
Look at the differences:
5-matches: (5 to 9) 80% difference.
4-matches: (308 to 333) 8.1% difference.
3-matches: (5625 to 5549) 1.4% diffeence.
Again: Run your test on a different game database, and you'll get different
results.
It's _only_ because you use a tiny data sample.
> Sometimes a random performs better than a wheel
> in any hit category.
Of course it does. What you don't seem to ever understand, Ion, is _why_.
It is called, "the luck of the draw", which happens to you in your wheel
work because you are fixated on a tiny sample in a given game's history or
database file, compared to the 13,983,816 combinations space of a 6/49 game.
It is because you apparently don't see the difference between using a tiny
data sample and announcing it as universally significant.
... Disagree? Read on.
... Your WHEEL49.36 thing you show above, with less 5-number wins than
your random thing...
... Is the _same_ WHEEL49.36 thing you boasted as giving:
... '3 times as many 5-winners',
... 'in any game, worldwide'
... -- three years ago in RGL.
This time you not only did not come even close to your earlier boast of '3
times as many 5-winners' with your WHEEL49.36.
You didn't even score as many 5-winners as in the random set.
Let's wrap-up the point.
... Once you used a tiny data set, and came to one conclusion.
... Now you use a different tiny data set, and come to a different
conclusion.
... If you run your 416 lines, and _any_ other 416 lines through a
larger data set, you'll get closer correlation between the two of them.
... Three years ago the test was conducted with over 15,000 draws. The
differences were less than 0.7 percent (0.7%) in matches, and less than
0.5 percent (0.5%) in prize amounts won.
Here's your problem:
You give data that is relevant to one point in time, relevant to the players
of one game only, and relevant only if they happened to have played your
lines in that game in the past.
... It is _utterly_ irrelevant to any other players of any other
games.
... It is _utterly_ irrelevant to the same players of that same game
in the future.
The more you expand your data sample, the closer your two sets of
combinations come together.
- - -
Here's some help for you.
1. Read the data that was given to you three years ago. You're still
pushing your same WHEEL49.36 today, so you can use that earlier data for
your reference. Update it.
2. Read the explanation about wheeling you see at the bottom of the RGL
newsgroup's FAQ.
Here it is, summarized for you, Ion.
... Regardless of how you construct your wheel,
... It will contain exactly the same amount of matches, at _each_ prize
level, as any other set with an equal amount of lines in it.
... You can't see it any plainer than that.
... The two sets of lines will have exactly the same amount of
6-matches. They will have exactly the same amount of 5-matches. They will
have exactly the same amount of 4-matches. And exactly the same amount of
3-matches. And exactly the same amount of 2-matches. And exactly the same
amount of 1-matches.
... Why? Because at each matching level, the amount of 'holes', in
either set of lines, will be exactly compensated for by the amount of
'duplicates'. The two sets will have exactly the same amount of matches at
_each_ prize level.
If you do not understand this, Ion, go to your dictionary and look up the
meaning of the words "exactly" and "same".
The only difference between a perfectly constructed wheel, an imperfectly
constructed wheel, and no wheel at all -- with the same amount of lines:
... is in the _distribution_ of the winning matches _over time_.
... _not_ in the total matches at each prize level they contain.
Read the key words: _over time_.
Translate that into its plain synonym, staring you in the face, Ion: large
data sample.
- - - - - - - -
> Of course, there are those with an interest in
> lotto wheels and wheeling. They sell wheels on
> paper or wheeling software. Their interest is
> to stress that the wheels offer a great advantage
> over random play. There is no "great" in the equation;
> moreover, the "advantage" is actually disadvantage!
That is a complete falsehood.
Pointed out to you too many times already, and referenced again in this
thread.
>
> There are also the "wheelists" as in "ufologists".
> Die-hard ufologists will never conceive that UFOs
> do not exist. After all, they spent their lives
> chasing UFOs! Die-hard wheelists cannot conceive
> that lotto wheels do not present an advantage over
> random play. After all, they spent their monies
> buying and playing lotto wheels!
>
Hardly worthy of comment.
Wheels _do_ have a tangible benefit for the player compared to the same
amount of randomized combinations. In three areas, related to the
time-distribution of wins. It's been explained to you ad nauseum by the
explainers. Either you're incapable of grasping the concept, or you're
disingenuous, which is a real euphemism.
There are _many_ people who give away free wheels, including those
world-class designs which you can download freely at the Web sites listed in
the RGL FAQ.
There are also people who freely give away Freeware for wheeling, wheel
testing and validation, targeted filtering of wheeled combinations, playslip
printing, and other tools used by lottery players.
There are also people who freely give their time and effort to share wheels
freely in this forum, including sharing in the development and improvement
of the wheels.
Instead of indulging in self-importance and suspicions of others, try
improving your own superficial and trivial awareness about wheels. You'll
find some references to covering respositories and designs in the FAQ.
Joe Roberts
CDEX
CDEX
I am going to simplify the most recent post for you.
Here are your three main points.
1. Wheels.
2. Your Wheel Presentations.
3. Wheel Developers.
This is so you will have no possibility to misunderstand it.
And you will have no possibility to misrepresent it.
- - - - - - - - - -
1. Wheels.
_All_ sets of combinations of the same pick size and the same amount of
combinations, have exactly the same amount of matches at each prize level.
Take any pair or more (your choice) of wheels or random sets.
If they are all the same pick size (e.g. Pick-6) with the same amount of
line (e.g.416 lines), they will have an identical amount of matches between
them, at each prize level. They will have an identical amount of 6-number
matches. They will have an identical amount of 5-number matches. Likewise
4-number matches. Likewise 3-number matches. Likewise 2-number matches.
Likewise 1-number matches.
Their _only_ difference will be in the _distribution_ of those matches,
over the range of possible matches in the game. For example, the difference
will show in how many of the possible 5-matches are covered; and in how
many of the possible 4-matches are covered; and so on.
In long-term play, what one set misses in non-matched prizes (because of its
holes), will be made up for in multiple prizes (because of its
redundancies).
In long-term play, the amounts won will be similar, with the more-equalized
wheel tending to have produced more revenue based on three factors: the
parimutuel payout, the player's increased availability of discretionary
funds for playing (money management), and taxation (where it applies to
lottery winnings).
That's the _only_ difference.
Any conclusions you draw about short-term prize amounts are invalid.
That was demonstrated clearly for you three years ago. It was demonstrated
using your same wheel WHEEL49.36 that you keep pushing today. It was
demonstrated with sets of 78 combinations, and with sets of 8 combinations.
It was even demonstrated to you using a set of combinations which were all
_exactly the same_ combinations.
That was three years ago. You have some responsibility to retain that
information. You have absolutely _no_ basis for dredging it up nowadays
and warping the factual data.
If you still don't get it about wheels, you can prove it with several
software programs. They are referenced in the RGL FAQ. They are free of
charge, readily available for you to download.
You were also advised to read the 'wheeling' part of Q&A section of the RGL
FAQ. Here it is for you below.
This is the direct copy from the FAQ. It's written by one of the most
respected, and respectable, cover developers you're ever likely to meet.
Please read it closely.
"I use the opportunity again to emphasize that the average winning rate
**over a long period of time** is always a constant depending only on the
average amount paid for the prizes. It does not matter which wheel's
tickets are played - your 100, my 100, 100 random tickets, or even 100 times
the same ticket. In most Lotteries the winning rate is 0.2 to 0.4, in other
words you are going to lose 60-80% of your investment money.
"For a *short period of time* you can be on the "positive side" for some
time, if you hit the big one early even for a really long time. But the
only way to get on the positive side is to be lucky. I hope you folks here
are all aware that these wheels, filters, prediction attempts or whatever
else are just for personal entertainment and do nothing to bring you on the
"positive lottery side". Keep playing."
Subsequent to that FAQ, it was demonstrated that there is some tangible,
measurable financial benefit to wheeling, in three areas: the parimutuel;
money management; and taxation where it applies (e.g. USA Federal and State
taxes).
Don't go into the ozone layer and misread what you see above. None of it
means that wheels have no value at all, so don't go down that route again.
It means that no wheeling system, taken by itself, can put you into positive
(profit) territory. No lottery method, including wheeling, can by itself
put your on the "positive lottery side", meaning sustained profit on your
lottery playing. It doesn't happen that way. You need luck to make a
profit. However, while you continue to play, properly designed wheels can
minimize your cash outlay, based on the three factors outlined in the
previous paragraph.
More on the subject has appeared in RGL several times, including showing the
player costs and prizes. It's also on Lotto-Logix.
Moral: Don't make silly pronouncements about some 'myth' of wheeling, while
you contribute to that myth.
Action: Read up, and join in the journey to make more efficient wheels.
- - - - - - - - - -
2. Your Wheel Presentations.
Think about the above, when you present your material such as your
WHEEL49.36.
When you just show the prizes matched in just one 6/49 game, in less than
800 draws, you miss the point that is described above.
You're showing a curiosity only. Don't make it into anything else, and
don't use it to rail against other people.
In that limited example, you show _nothing_ of value to players for use in
any game, anywhere, at any time.
Those matches show your wheel's past performance, for that one game's own
unique draw history.
Those matches are _not_ relevant to any other lottery game played by any
other players, anywhere else.
Those matches are not even relevant to the _same_ game for the next future
series of draws.
The only way your results could be relevant to another game would be if the
two games had close combinations in their histories. Even if they're in
different locations and use different machines and ballsets.
That was demonstrated to you, with full data. The more players use your
wheel, in over 15,000 draws in multiple games, the closer your wheel comes
to plain random play. With percentages of difference less than one percent
from random play.
Moral: Be wary of boasting. Words fall away from data like dust. Use
better data. Respect data when others give it to you.
Action: Don't present a tiny data sample and represent it as having great
signficance. It doesn't.
- - - - - - - - - -
3. Wheel Development.
Wheel developers don't develop wheels because they think they will make some
kind of breakthrough into positive profit territory.
They know the odds preclude that. In better words, they know that the ratio
between the odds and prize amount, at each prize level, precludes that.
For example if a 3-match pays 10 units, at chances of 1 in 57, then you are
going to have to make a 5.7x improvement in those odds to just break even.
In practical terms, you have going to have to construct this kind of
49/6/3/6 wheel:
... a 9-line wheel that wins on each draw, or
... an 19-line wheel than wins every other draw -- and so on.
You aren't going to do it. Even if you did, the game would know about it in
a fortnight and would change their prize amounts.
So don't bullshit around about wheels.
You have one goal.
Your goal is to reduce the wheel down to exactly the same amount of coverage
for each member of the target subset.
In plainer English. If your wheel is a "3 if 6" wheel, you want to have
exactly the same coverage for every 3-number subset in the wheel: 1-2-3,
1-2-4, etc right out to the last 3-number subset in the wheel.
If you can get exactly 1 of each 3-number subset (if that's your target
prize level), you can do no better.
If you have more than 1 of the same 3-number subset, you have a redundancy
and the player has a higher wheeling cost for it. He also sees less of one
or more of the three benefits in playing the wheel in the first place.
The three benefits of wheeling (parimutuel, money management, taxation) are
based on what a wheel does _over time_. It allows you to get more regular,
smaller wins at shorter intervals of time -- compared to randomized
combinations which give you irregular, larger wins at longer intervals of
time.
Wheels can have two things in their construction -- holes and duplicates
(redundant matches).
The holes have been eliminated long ago in all modern Abbreviated wheels.
Your job is to work on the redundancies and get rid of them if you can. Or,
if you can't get rid of them, reduce them and distribute them as evenly as
possible.
If you can bring a wheel's size down closer to the mathematical odds, you'll
bring it closer to the playing budget of more players. I'm referring as
much to a 20-line wheel as to a 163-line wheel. It applies to any of them.
It means that more players will be able to use the wheel in their budget,
without resorting to random play to be affordable. And if they have to use
filtering to bring a larger wheel down to the budget, at least they'll know
they began without much bias in their numbers.
Moral: Don't bullshit about wheel developer people's intentions or
motivations. It looks and sounds petty.
Action: Pick a wheel that people are working hard at, e.g. the 162-line
49/6/3/6 or another wheel, and see if you can really do something of value
with it.
- - - - - - - - - -
If you want to display your mediocrity in your wheel designs, fine. That's
an open subject for other people to look at and enjoy.
Your material is among the shallowest and silliest I've seen in this
newsgroup. It reeks with errors that you can't visualize even when they're
shown and explained to you.
Do _not_ associate my name with your material. It does you no good
whatsoever. See if you can grasp that point, as well as the others above.
Joe Roberts
CDEX
Ion Saliu
Factual data is taboo. But nothing is more convincing than data
analysis when presenting a "passionate" topic. Lotto wheels are such a
topic. I have analyzed large amounts of data. I only encountered cases
where the wheels perform worse than random sets at prize levels higher
than a wheel guarantee. I haven't seen anybody with findings to the
contrary. Besides, the main point of the "wheelists" is that the
wheels offer a "great advantage" over random play. That's how some
(try to) sell lotto wheels and wheeling software. That's the main
point. Pay for something that's worse than something else, which is
free!
•• The most hilarious defense of lotto wheeling relates to taxation.
Playing lotto wheels offers also an advantage for taxation purposes.
In a country such as USA, lottery winnings must be reported on the tax
forms. That is, the net winnings. The player must keep accurate
records of cost and winnings. If the winnings exceed the cost of
playing, the result is reported to IRS. The opposite is not valid. If
the costs exceed the winnings, the player may not take the net loss
and deduct it! Wouldn't that be great if allowed, wheelists?
I showed how the 163-line wheel registered higher losses than a random
combination set. The bottom line is lotto wheels will lose more money
in the long run. Also the random sets will lead to financial losses in
the long run. We are talking NET LOSSES here. Let's suppose, repeat,
only suppose, that IRS would treat the lottery as a legitimate
charity. Then, the net losses from playing the lottery would be
considered donations to charities. Then, they would be deductible. In
such an absurd case, it would be an "advantage" to play lotto wheels.
They assure higher losses, therefore higher deductions! There would be
a limit, of course. The taxable income would reach level zero soon.
Nothing may be deducted below zero!
Well, this wheel taxation topic is yet another manifestation of the
‘Bomide PhD syndrome'! Just search for it in rec.gambling.lottery at
groups.google.com…
Even though I offer some free lotto wheels, I advise now against
playing them. I only look at them as mathematical sets.
Anybody can analyze large amounts of data using my freeware
WINNERS.EXE. The program categorizes the wins (hits) by three major
prizes. The program also shows the winning combinations and draws.
Download location of the program, plus many more free programs:
http://www.saliu.com/infodown.html
Ion Saliu
CDEX
> You will know when a topic belongs in the "passion" category.
> Factual data is taboo.
Hogwash.
You're insulting people in this newsgroup who are avid workers in game
analysis and wheeling, who are dedicated and work hard at it.
They post their data findings here, full, complete and open for everyone to
see. They eagerly post, analyze, and help with each other's data.
Your view is more characteristic of a "nutcase" category.
You've ignored every byte of factual data given to you. You haven't
acknowledged it, reproduced it, or developed upon it.
All of that data is in the RGL archives, and some of it is even here in this
thread for you. You haven't referenced one solitary snip of it.
You simply snipe away with your OT platitudes about people outside the caged
area, platitudes being apparently all you have to work with.
Otherwise? Then produce some data, discuss it openly, and don't make
boasts for it until it's reviewed and acknowledged by others.
- - - - - -
> I have analyzed large amounts of data. I only encountered cases
> where the wheels perform worse than random sets at prize levels
> higher than a wheel guarantee. I haven't seen anybody with findings
> to the contrary.
Absolute hogwash. You had the data results from the tests of your
WHEEL49.36 staring you in the face. That includes your own ludicrous
'findings' that contradict your own words above.
It's been summarized for you again in this thread, in case your research is
too shoddy to hunt it up in the archives.
You had comparisons between your wheel and plain equally-spaced lines in
over 15,000 lottery draws.
You had analyses of your wheel's internal matching in two separate wheel
test programs.
You had comparisons against another software program's wheel generation, in
the same application for the same lottery game.
Nothing more can be done for you on that score.
It's pertinent to note also that now, as you write...:
> I only encountered cases
> where the wheels perform worse than random sets at prize levels
> higher than a wheel guarantee. I haven't seen anybody with findings
> to the contrary.
... that you're the same Ion (well, perhaps) who previously wrote that your
"3if6" wheel WHEEL49.36 would produce '3 times as many 5-winners' as any
other 416-line wheel, in any game worldwide.
Make up your mind(s).
Either:
... you did find that your WHEEL49 outperformed all other 416-line
wheels worldwide at the prize level (5/6) higher than its guarantee (3/6),
-OR-
... you did find that your WHEEL49 performed worse, in which case your
claim was nonsense,
-OR-
... in your case, both of your claims are nonsense.
> Even though I offer some free lotto wheels, I advise now against
> playing them. I only look at them as mathematical sets.
Yeah, well, you offered your wheels just four days ago.
Four days later, you "advise now against playing them".
You might have considered making that statement when you posted them.
Joe Roberts
CDEX
CDEX
After two days of reading the post from the RGL player below -- are you
going to respond to it?
You posted a 10-number '3 of 5' wheel in 6 combinations.
The RGL player showed you that that wheel can be easily done in 2
combinations. He showed the lines to you.
What does your 6-line wheel offer to the player that the 2-line wheel
does not offer?
... Other than 3-times the matches at 3-times the playing cost?
Ion...
You have previously written that "wheels merely accelerate losses" for the
player.
Why would you offer players a wheel that 'accelerates losses' at 3 times
the rate as another wheel?
Answer the man's question.
Joe Roberts
CDEX
= = = = = = = = = =
gARY wrote:
> Are all these wheels your own work Ion? Only........
> ...
gARY
> the rate as another wheel?
>
> Answer the man's question.
>
>
> Joe Roberts
> CDEX
>
>
>
> = = = = = = = = = =
>
> gARY wrote:
>
> > Are all these wheels your own work Ion? Only........
> > ...
>
> > Take this one for ease of an example:-
> >
> >> SYS-10 35 = 10-number '3 of 5' wheel, 6 combinations
> >
> > It's a pick5 game right? And your software(?)
> > made a 10number 3if5 in 6 tickets?
> >
> > Cos, if we take just these 2blocks:-
> > 1 2 3 4 5
> > 6 7 8 9 10
> >
> > I make it a 3if5 in 2tickets/combinations, even the one
> > b4 "9-number" you have at "3 combinations".
> >
> > What am I missing in this given week of humour?
> >
> > Good job your work is free, ;)
> > gARY
Thanks Joe,
I just see a few inflated simple wheels displayed for the player however
after some work Ion was close on a couple:-
Ion's (known)
Lotto-5 Wheels 3of5 (pick 5, 3if5)
09-number, 3 combinations (2blocks)
10-number, 6 combinations (2blocks)
11-number, 6 combinations (5blocks)
12-number, 12 combinations (6blocks)
13-number, 12 combinations (8blocks)
14-number, 13 combinations (10blocks)
15-number, 27 combinations (13blocks)
16-number, 35 combinations (14blocks)
17-number, 47 combinations (18blocks)
18-number, 51 combinations (22blocks)
19-number, 59 combinations (26blocks)
20-number, 71 combinations (32blocks)
Lotto-5 Wheels 5of7 (pick 7, 5if7)
10-number, 3 combinations (3blocks)
11-number, 5 combinations, (3blocks)
12-number, 11 combinations (6blocks)
13-number, 18 combinations (10blocks)
14-number, 27 combinations (17blocks)
15-number, 43 combinations (26blocks)
16-number, 63 combinations (49blocks)
17-number, 105 combinations (53blocks) so far
18-number, 154 combinations (77blocks) so far
19-number, 159 combinations (not known) yet
20-number, 253 combinations (not known) yet
Anyone spot the "couple"?
No wonder Ion's having trouble,
gARY
gARY
> Lotto-5 Wheels 5of7 (pick 7, 5if7)
Lotto-**7** Wheels 5of7 (pick 7, 5if7)
Just in case like,
gARY
BTW, Why not go Pick5 5if 7? Is there such a game??
gARY
> playing them. I only look at them as mathematical sets.
Don't go there Ion, Duncan (my main matth man) will eat you!! As I will 'you
trying' wheeling!!!
You have been warned,
gARY
No PS./ No BTW./ No Bullshit.... It willl happan!.........you WILL lose!!!
Are you any better on Rec.math/where.will.I.fit?
> Ion Saliu
gARY
I can't even provoke Ion in to responding (unless my isp dropped a post as
usual).
I give up,
gARY
--
Affordable wheeling:-
http://www.justservices.com/9ukp.html
"gARY" wrote
gARY
> ..................
> 16-number, 63 combinations (49blocks)
> 17-number, 105 combinations (53blocks) so far
As was
> 18-number, 154 combinations (77blocks) so far
Now in 75
> 19-number, 159 combinations (not known) yet
107 so far
> 20-number, 253 combinations (not known) yet
148 so far
You playing Ion?
gARY
Ion Saliu
we hope you'll post your tax return showing the savings by playing
lotto wheels. Perhaps you are also a tax preparer. We may want to see
other players' tax returns. Just black out sensitive data. You know,
social security number, medical expenses, etc.
Otherwise, all your words are just the stuff the PhD Bomide syndrome
is made of. The two of you are like twins.
Ion Saliu
http://www.saliu.com/
CDEX
> We was hoping ...
The only "we" is your apparently fragged ability to do your own research,
and then be consistent and data-driven.
To which one can add: your inability to engage in two-way dialogue with
anyone other than yourselves.
> We was hoping you'd give some tax advice in horseracing, too. Anyway,
> we hope you'll post your tax return showing the savings by playing
> lotto wheels. Perhaps you are also a tax preparer. We may want to see
> other players' tax returns. Just black out sensitive data. You know,
> social security number, medical expenses, etc.
Well, Ion, you've shown that you're incapable of an original output on the
entire wheeling subject:
... how wheels work, how to optimize them, how to test them internally,
how to test them externally in an adequate games database, and how to relate
them to random play.
Now, one can add: apparently you're devoid of an original idea about three
other subjects related to wheeling.
... on the parimutuel, on discretionary funds availabilty, and on
taxation of lottery winnings as it applies at the US Federal and some State
levels.
In fact, Ion:
... it's hard to bring up a wheeling subject for which you have not
displayed mediocrity in your posting.
= = = = = = = = = =
OK. Here it goes again, Ion. Just for you.
You have ignored at least eight (8) articles and discussions on the subject.
All of them have been posted in RGL.
Some have been addressed directly to you, in response to one of your
illogical ramblings on the subject of wheeling. Remember?
That includes one reference that was posted to you in this same thread, just
last week. Remember?
You were given the Web site, and you were invited to look up the
information. Remember?
Again somebody has to do the job of digging out articles, for which you are
either too lazy or too incompetent to do yourself, Ion.
One other point, before we go farther. No one owes you anything. If you
are going to raise this subject, with your usual name-dropping and insults:
... You have some responsibility to try some original thought.
... You have some responsibility to try to reason it out for yourself.
It takes extra effort to compensate for your deficiency on that score.
Anyway here it is, just for you, Ion.
- - - - - -
You will find a summary of the effect of taxation on lottery winnings, over
8 years of lottery play. That is in addition to reviews of the parimutuel
and money management.
Each one of those three topics is compared between:
... (a) 'balanced' wheels with even coverage of prizes; and,
... (b) sets with highly unbalanced coverage.
Here it is, just for you, Ion.
Try to understand it. Even if you can't do it gracefully, just try to get
it.
... The topic has been around in RGL since November 1999.
... It has been specifically addressed to _you_, Ion, since July
2000.
Missed it then? Tut, tut, Ion. It was referenced again for you in this
thread, last week. Including the link to the article at Lotto-Logix.
Remember, Ion?
1. Try it again: Lotto-Logix (http://www.lotto-logix.com). Go to
'Articles'. The topic title is obvious. You could have found it in less
than two minutes, if you'd honestly cared to research the topic. The
article has two parts. Read them.
2. RGL, 10 November 1999, et al.
3. RGL, 06 April 2000, et al.
4. RGL, 01 July 2000, et al.
5. RGL, 04 July 2000, et al.
6. RGL, 05 July 2000, et al.
7. RGL, 20 July 2002, et al.
8. RGL, 26 December 2002, et al.
Try Google, searching on the string: CDEX parimutuel tax -- (no quotes).
... That will give you articles with those three keywords.
... Several of those were in response to you, Ion. Remember?
... Together with other people's responses to you. Remember?
You have some responsibility to retain that information. Don't you?
That is seven (7) instances of the articles being posted in this public
forum. With follow-ups. And on a Web site, given to you less than a week
ago.
You ignored them.
You've never indicated you read or understood one iota of those materials.
You were too busy personally attacking a half-dozen people at that time.
Dropping and twisting names. Still are.
Ion wrote:
> Otherwise, all your words are just the stuff the PhD Bomide syndrome
> is made of. The two of you are like twins.
>
> Ion Saliu
No problem, Ion. I really don't mind your cheap shots. Your foot is
getting full of holes.
= = = = = = = = = =
Before closing, Ion.
It's been typical of you to do four things.
... Fail to respond to questions;
... Flip-Flop on wheeling;
... Keep it one-sided; and
... Shift the Subject.
(1) Fail to respond to questions. You see the question from another
lottery player to you in RGL. If you maintain (your words) that wheeling
"accelerates the player's loss", why do you publish a wheel with three times
the playing cost of a similar wheel?
... Have you no answer to that question?
(2) Flip-flop on wheeling. You've said that wheeling "accelerates the
player's loss". Then you publish your new set of wheels. Then four days
later, you "advise against using them". You're given the RGL FAQ reference
about wheeling, verbatim. Then you post some results from one tiny data
sample, from only one lottery game, contradicting the RGL FAQ.
... Have you ever done any serious research into wheeling?
(3) Keep it one-sided rather than making a dialogue. You get responses
here in RGL with real, live game data showing the errors in your wheeling
claims, and of course you don't respond to any of the data. In your own
forums you copy only your own posts, which were shown in RGL as false.
... Fortunately, most of your time you are simply talking to yourself.
(4) Try to Shift the Subject. Can't hack it on the wheeling subject any
longer, Ion? Then see if you can slip away to some new thing, about
taxation or whatever.
... And of course, with a brand new set of name-dropping.
Typical.
Thank goodness for Google. Anybody falling for your tripe can explore the
RGL archives, and see it for themselves.
- - -
Ion:
If you try to join the wider community of lottery enthusiasts, in RGL and
elsewhere, you need to _seriously_ consider the kind of professionalism
you display.
Try taking a vote for the majority opinion among your minds. Then try
answering the question posted to you, and repeated to you several times,
about your bloated, inefficient wheels.
That's how you began this thread.
Have a nice day.
Joe Roberts
CDEX
gARY
> We was hoping you'd give some tax advice in horseracing, too.
Sorry Ion, don't play then nags.
>Anyway,
> we hope you'll post your tax return showing the savings by playing
> lotto wheels. Perhaps you are also a tax preparer. We may want to see
> other players' tax returns. Just black out sensitive data. You know,
> social security number, medical expenses, etc.
Sorry Ion, don't pay taxes.
> Otherwise, all your words are just the stuff the PhD Bomide syndrome
> is made of.
Sorry Ion, don't need bromide. ;)
>The two of you are like twins.
>
> Ion Saliu
WHAT? Now Joe and I are the same person???
What ya on? Send me some, twice!!
gARY
CDEX
Ion,
This will refresh your memory about wheeling.
You have responsibility to retain this. It was originally addressed to you.
It's addressed to you again.
Here is a direct copy from the 05 July 2000 RGL post that was given to
you.
It explains how wheeling compares to 'randomized' lines.
It was one of the summaries you got in RGL, showing the errors in your
perception of wheeling and in your false claims for your "optimized" wheel.
One of several, which you disregarded. And apparently, forgot.
This just cannot be made any clearer to you.
If you still do not see it, your inability to do so is irresponsible. That
inability is also unprofessional relative to your responsibilities in
'contributing' publicly to the subject of wheeling.
... Perhaps the material below will help you understand the subject
better.
If you do see it, your recent post (04/27/2003) which started this entire
thread is unprofessional for the name-dropping, slander and
misrepresentation you placed into it.
... Perhaps the material below will help you understand my statements
which you malign.
Look hard at this material below. Repeat it to yourself until you get it.
In addition:
... Read again the data that was reported to you in RGL by myself and
two other persons, relative to the false claims you made for your 416-line
wheel -- which you trotted out again on 04/27/2003. It performed
identically (differences of <0.7% in matching, <0.5% in prizes) to
plain equally-spaced lines in extended trials of public games. That was
shown to you in data.
... Read again the data that was reported to you in RGL by myself and
one other person, relative to comparing your "optimized" lines against
biased lines, even against grossly duplicated lines. Both performed
identically. That was shown to you in data.
Every report that you have read, given to you by several persons using a
variety of software techniques for wheel validation, is consistent with the
material below. You have responsibility to read and retain it.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ion:
If you cannot digest the facts below, given to you three years ago, try it
this way.
1. Read the Wheeling part of the Q&A section of the RGL FAQ.
2. Re-read it until you understand the point about prize matching. Total
matching is the same at _every_ prize level, no matter how "optimized" or
"random" a set of lines may be.
3. Re-read it again, and understand it. Only then can you move on.
4. With total matches identical, the _only_ difference between balanced
(i.e. wheeled) lines and unbalanced (i.e. random) lines is in the
distribution of subsets -- i.e, how many are covered without "holes" and
without duplication.
5. Therefore: With total matching _identical_, and with distribution
_different_ -- the _only_ difference will be in the distribution of
lower-tier prizes (not Jackpot prizes) as they are matched over time.
... That's _Time_, Ion, as in tick tock. Get it yet?
... Make sure you've got it now, Ion. You are looking at irregular
_time_ distribution of lower-tier prize matches.
6. Therefore: Irregular time distribution of lower-tier prizes affects:
... the Parimutuel;
... Money management, i.e. availability of out-of-pocket money for other
investments;
... Taxation of lottery winnings, where net 'positive' return must be
declared for taxes, and net 'negative' return can never go below zero -- and
_must_ be accounted for on a per-calendar-year basis.
Ion: _That_ (and the wheel material below) are the basis for what you
heretofore have not understood. You might try understanding, instead of
scoffing at what you have missed.
If you can get it gracefully and professionally, all the better. Don't
seeth or sulk. Don't do an ego feeding frenzy. Just get it.
Ion: Try hard and struggle with it.
- - - - - -
To RGL Readers:
I apologize to RGLers, who thought this 3-year old subject was closed. So
did I.
And I apologize also for your having to endure this ridiculous thread
continuing with Mr Saliu.
I sincerely hope Mr Saliu will be able to originate an article on wheeling,
without resorting to dropping my name into it and lying about what I have
written and posted.
- - -
Public record, Ion. Nearly three years ago. Read it.
Joe Roberts
CDEX
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
> From: "CDEX" <cd...@mediaone.net>
> Subject: Re: WHERE'S THE LOGIC?
> Date: 2000/07/05
> Message-ID: <2eL85.36731$Fe4.2...@typhoon.jacksonville.mediaone.net>
>
>
>Ion,
>
> I wish we could get agreement on this stuff, but so far
> it has been elusive.
>
> Let's try again.
...
> Please think it over.
>
> If you wish to maintain that there is some difference
> between that "optimized" set and that "random" set
> in terms of real outcome for wins, then you must
> somehow do the following.
>
> You must try to explain why the outcomes were shown
> to be identical, and what error, if any, was contained
> in posting those outcomes.
>
> You can't. There was no error. Their outcome is identical,
> both in theory and in the real world.
...
> You can't go forward with the assumption that there is
> some innate difference in total win expectation between
> two or more wheels of the same size, until you explain
> how and why the fundamental example just given to
> you shows their total win expectation to be identical.
>
> One can acknowledge that fact, or ignore it. But it
> is not logical to ignore it and move on to further
> discussion of the same subject, while assuming
> that fact does not exist.
>
> - - - - - -
>
> I do not know how to make it any plainer.
>
> Let's try a different approach.
>
> Let's take this from the top down.
>
> Consider *any* two sets of lines, of the same size.
> Any sets you like.
>
> For any one set to produce more winning matches
> than the other set, there **must** be at least
> one combination in that first set which has a greater
> probability of being drawn in the lottery game, than
> any other combination.
>
> For any combination to be more likely of being drawn
> in the lottery game, it **must** contain at least
> one number which has a greater probability of
> being drawn in the lottery game, than any other number.
>
> Therefore to demonstrate that one set will produce
> more winning matches than the other set, you **must**
> be able to demonstrate that some number has a
> greater probability of being drawn in the lottery game,
> than any other number.
>
> You can't do that. It is as simple as that.
>
>
> Put as many numbers as you like into combinations.
> "Optimize" them in any way you like. The outcome
> of those combinations, over time, will be equal
> to the same amount of combinations made at random.
> There are valid reasons for producing a set of lines
> with a flat coverage of all of the possible matches
> for a given prize level. But those reasons are *not*
> related to the total matches that will be contained
> in that set of lines.
>
> - - - - - -
>
> Please let me put your "optimized" 416-line wheel
> into the perspective of your post above. It should
> illustrate what I mean.
>
> This has already been posted before, in *very* tedious
> detail, so I'll be brief.
>
> Your 416-line "optimized" wheel gives a 100 percent
> chance of a 3-number match in the game's next draw.
> It averages 7.34 3-number wins in steady play.
>
> The 416-line "randomized" wheel gives a 99.9587 percent
> chance of a 3-number match in the game's next draw.
> It averages 7.34 3-number wins in steady play.
>
> The **only** difference between your wheel and the
> plain random one is: 0.0413 percent.
>
> That is, in the random set, 0.0413 percent of the
> game's combinations will not give a 3-number match.
> But the other 99.9587 percent of the combinations
> make up for that missing 0.0413 percent, by making more
> matches. The results are the same between both sets.
> The player will average 7.34 3-number wins with either set.
>
> Again, there are valid reasons for optimizing wheels
> to get a flatter distribution of the matching.
> But it is not related to total wins, which
> remain a constant in proportion to the wheel's size.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
END
Ion, if you are still lucid at this point:
... Go back to the top and read the six (6) points summarizing this
material.
... If it sinks in to your head, retain it.
Joe Roberts
CDEX
CDEX
I noticed that your original message which started this thread:
> From: isa...@onebox.com (Ion Saliu)
> Newsgroups: rec.gambling.lottery,alt.lotto.players
> Subject: Free lotto-5, lotto-6, lotto-7 wheels & systems
> Date: 27 Apr 2003 11:03:46 -0700
> Organization: http://groups.google.com/
> Lines: 162
> Message-ID: <f2567897.03042...@posting.google.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.59.97.156
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> X-Trace: posting.google.com 1051466627 3077 127.0.0.1 (27 Apr 2003
18:03:47 GMT)
> X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
> NNTP-Posting-Date: 27 Apr 2003 18:03:47 GMT
... is no longer on the ATTBI.COM/Comcast news server as of this evening.
It is, however, still in Google. It may be on other servers for other RGL
readers as well.
Joe Roberts
CDEX
CDEX
Here's some help.
Suggestion:
... Instead of an ego feeding frenzy, get back to combinations and
testing.
... Read the Wheeling part in the Q&A section of the RGL newsgroup's
FAQ.
... Understand that 'good wheels' and 'random lines' of the same size
contain the same total matches.
... Understand that their only difference is in the distribution of
matches below the Jackpot level. Not the total. The _distribution_.
... Understand that their Jackpot matching chances are the same, both in
total and over time.
... Understand that their only physical, practical difference, to the
player, is in the distribution of lower-tier prizes as they are won by the
player _over time_.
... Understand that "prize/time" distribution will be more flat (in
quantity) and regular (in intervals of time) for a 'good wheel' -- versus --
more peaked (in quantity) and irregular (in intervals of time) for 'random
lines'.
... Understand that the "better" the 'good wheel' in terms of equalized
matching of the lower-tier subsets, the more flat (in quantity) and regular
(in intervals of time) will be the lower-tier prizes for the player.
... Understand that the "worse" the 'random lines' in terms of holes and
duplication in the matching of the lower-tier prizes, the more peaked (in
quantity) and irregular (in intervals of time) will be the lower-tier prizes
for the player.
... Understand the "prize/time" effect on the parimutuel, availability
of discretionary (non-lottery) funds, and calculation of taxes (where they
apply to lottery winnings).
And as your next step:
... See the world-class wheels at the sites listed in the RGL FAQ.
... See if you can optimize your wheels to improve on that level of
efficiency.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
About: Wheels:
... Except for Full wheels, some Abbreviated, and some Pairs and
Keys/Bankers derived from Abbreviated wheels, few wheels are ever
'finished'.
... The rest can stand improvement.
... 'Improvement' takes the form of reducing the wheeling cost, while
equalizing the distribution of subsets (where possible).
... It ties in exactly with the wheel information shown near the top of
this message.
... There are other forms of 'improvement' (with L>1 etc), however the
premise is on equalizing the subsets distribution.
... If you post a wheel, do it in a way that invites its testing and
improvement by others.
... Don't push or promote anything. Let others see if they think it's
justified.
... If it's justified, they will thank you for it. And then it will get
better next time.
And:
... If you post a technical article, let it stand on its own technical
merit.
... Don't drag out people's names and insult them in your technical
material.
... That will ruin your credibility.
... It will make it harder to get your point across if you do have
something of merit.
... Also it will reduce your ability to communicate with the very people
you need to test, validate, and improve your wheels (and knowledge).
... Few people, if any, will go for any distance at a petty level. They
have better things to do.
... If people find no food value in your material, let it go without
taking offense.
... Stay objective: games, numbers, odds, costs, and prizes. That's
the universal language.
... The Lotto odds are tough enough for everyone. Don't make the
player's experience worse, make it better.
I can't offer you better advice than that.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
About: 'Relaxing':
... Don't worry. In handling communication with you, all is relaxed.
Always has been.
It's like cleaning the bottom of the parakeet cage after they have been
partying all afternoon. One might rather be doing something else, but these
things have to be done.
I clicked into RGL with a smile, always do. I'm enjoying the people, ideas,
and learning. As a bonus, I'm sipping a mellow, cool McEwan's, recommended
by a good lottery player. It all comes in stride.
Try joining some people who are working on wheels. Stay objective on data
that gets posted. You have plenty to offer if you can do that. Let your
data be open to everyone, and accept all inputs.
If people are using other software wheeling tools, don't imply they were
stolen from you. Neither in name nor in functionality.
Don't view this hobby as a 'you-versus-others' situation. You are not
competing with anyone. You are joining in a common effort.
If you insist on thinking you're 'competing' with someone, then you are
obligated to keep it up on the high road. That's the only way you can
'win', whatever that term means to you. But you'll get a lot farther if you
join and share in the effort, and so will other lottery players.
Acknowledge RGL as a one-room schoolhouse, as another good player has
described it. No one has superiority. Those who act as if they do, get
laughed at.
Don't use this newsgroup to drop suspicions about cabals against you. For
example, when you get .gov and .mil hits, it doesn't mean that somebody is
spying on you. Everybody gets them, they're normal. It doesn't matter what
domains address you. What matters is the usefulness of the information you
return to them as lottery players.
Don't go up into the Heaviside layer on this, and don't go off into a dark
corner and seethe. Not for three more years. Not for three seconds. Treat
this hobby as a well-lit room.
Think of the high standard for what your material is supposed to do for
lottery players. Remember that when you originate your new material, and
stick to it.
And _don't_ drop my name in your lottery materials. It buys you nothing
whatsoever. I'd suggest you avoid it with other people's names also.
Don't twist names, it's juvenile and unprofessional. It has the effects
outlined above, quite the opposite of any benefit either to lottery players
or to you.
Thank you,
Joe Roberts
CDEX
CDEX
Ion,
This is the Recap for the archive.
You began this thread on 04/27/2003 by posting your latest set of Pick-5-6-7
wheeling systems.
In the midst of that 'technical' (sic) article you dropped my name. You
referred to me by name, personally. That is why I responded to you in this
thread.
In your 04/27/2003 article you made completely, utterly false and misleading
statements about me. They are absolutely contradictory to the truth, and
they are contradictory to the archives of this newsgroups stored in Google
Groups.
Those falsehoods related to our three-year-old ( ! ) exchange on your
'WHEEL49' (Pick-6, 416 lines). Your descriptions of me were insulting,
utterly incorrect and false in every respect.
Note that neither you nor I have had any communication on that subject over
the intervening three years. Prior to 04/27/2003 the matter rested as
documented in RGL archives three years ago.
Again, nothing from me preceded your 04/27/2003 message, containing your
personal attack aimed directly at me, by my name, in this public place.
You initiated this thread we are in now, by your false statements of
04/27/2003.
- - - - - -
The following is the nature of our exchange in this current thread.
Replying to you in this thread, I have repeated to you the exact data you
received three years ago.
That data is still archived in the Google archive. I have given you the
text from those original exchanges. I have also given you the header
information so you may look it up, in case you have forgotten.
For the record, again: That data exercised your WHEEL49, in 16 public
lottery 6/49 games with a total of 15,114 draws. It showed that your
WHEEL49 performed in parity with a plain equally-spaced set of lines, with
minimal differences in performance. Those differences were: (<0.7%) in
matching of prizes, and (<0.5%) in total prize amounts.
In addition, data was shown to you proving that your WHEEL49 contained
exactly the same quantity of lower-tier prize matching (e.g. for 5-numbers,
4-numbers, and 3-numbers) as the plain equally-spaced set of lines. That
data also corroborates the description of wheeling contained in the 'Q&A'
section of this RGL newsgroup's FAQ.
That data exposed the claim you made for your wheel, of 'three times' as
many winners as any other same-size set of lines, in any game, worldwide --
as being utterly ungrounded and false. Your statement was simply,
factually, wrong.
That data was given to you publicly three years ago. In addition, you
received other data reports from three other persons, besides me, at that
time. Those reports summarized matching inside your wheel; and compared
your wheel against two other wheels. All of that data showed that your
claim was completely false.
Following your 04/27/2003 post, that original data was repeated again for
you in this current thread, with references to the original threads so you
can look it up.
Nothing more can be done for you.
You have responsibility to retain information of that kind.
You also have responsibility to do legitimate research, on your own, of
sufficent depth and by using sufficient game data samples. You have not, at
any time on the subject of wheeling, shown results that indicate you have
done that kind of research.
To the contrary, your public exchanges with me and with other persons in
this newsgroup, indicate that you rely on others to do that research effort
in response to your unsupported claims, and in response to the insults you
make at them. Then you reply by off-topic shifting and further insults,
including name-twisting and name-calling.
You have been given plenty of data, Ion. You have the responsibility to
absorb it, use it, and build upon it. Not to ignore it.
You have not responded to that data. You have not even acknowledged it.
Your post of 04/27/2003, which began this thread, characterizes and
continues your cheap and petty mode of posting on the subject of wheeling.
There is no point in continuing this one-way attempt at reasoning with you.
- - - - - - - - - -
Question and Answers:
In this thread, I have answered every question you have given me. I have
given you:
... (1) your specific wheel data;
... (2) a detailed description of wheel testing;
... (3) the URL link to articles referenced in this thread;
... (4) the dates of applicable posts on this subject in RGL; and
... (5) the keywords for you to locate those posts in Google.
You will _seldom_ find such an opportunity for an honest, thorough, and
responsive dialogue. Unfortunately you have not seen your responsibility in
it.
In this thread, you have not answered as much as _one_ question given to you
by me or by another RGL reader.
... Not any one of those questions.
You have replied in every instance with personal insults, and most recently
by trying to shift off-topic. When you have done so, I have even given you
the information also in that area. I posted it directly to you, in great
detail. And I gave you the link for more information. You haven't bothered
to reply on that topic, either.
If you want to have a wheeling discussion on a professional level, Ion, show
it. You have failed in this current example.
Otherwise, there is no point in having this kind of 'conversation' with you.
You can't handle it. You are out of time.
- - - - - - - - - -
Your Open Question:
You still have the open question, Ion. You have seen it here for more than
one week.
It still remains open, unanswered by you.
The question was put to you by another RGL reader. It has been repeated to
you several times.
It is a legitimate question. Here is the background for the question, and
then comes the question once more to you.
You have flip-flopped back and forth on wheeling, at least four times. In
that process you have made some of the most irrational, amateurish,
unsupported claims at both extremes of the wheeling spectrum.
... (1) Flip. You promoted your WHEEL49 as having 'three times' as
many winners as any comparable set of lines, worldwide. You offered no
proof. Your claim was shown to be utterly false, through extensive testing
and in the data reported by others to you.
... (2) Flop. Next, you proclaimed a 'myth' about wheeling, with your
final conclusion being that 'wheeling accelerates the losses' for the
player. You offered no proof. Your claim contradicts the wheel tests that
other people perform, and which you could perform, using freely available
testing software. Your claim also contradicts the description of wheel
operation that is contained in the RGL FAQ.
... (3) Flip. Next, after you have proclaimed that wheels 'accelerate
losses', on 04/27/2003 you have posted a new series of Pick-5-6-7 wheels in
RGL.
... (4) Flop. Four days later after posting those wheels, you posted
on 05/02/2003 that you 'advise now against playing them'.
The question before you is a legitimate one. It has been given to you
several times. Answer it.
... One of your wheels is a Pick-5 wheel, 10 numbers, '3if5' match, in
6 lines: it's your 'SYS-10 35' wheel.
... The RGL player questioned you about that wheel.
... He showed you that you can easily cover the '3if5' in just 2 lines,
instead of your 6.
... He showed you those 2 lines, plainly to you.
The question to you is, Ion:
... You previously wrote that "wheels merely accelerate losses" for
the player.
... If that is how you see wheels working for the player:
... Why would you now offer players a wheel that costs 3-times as much
to play as another wheel?
The RGL reader wrote to you on 04/30/2003. One week later now at
05/08/2003, you still have not addressed that issue.
= = = = = = = = = =
If you want to have a wheeling discussion on a professional level, Ion, show
it. You have failed in this current example.
Otherwise, there is no point in having this kind of 'conversation' with you.
You can't handle it. You are out of time.
Joe Roberts
CDEX
Ion Saliu
can be summarized as:
"Wheeling lotto numbers will yield equal results to playing random
combinations."
At best for their cause, they may be correct. It's a similar situation
to this one:
"Combination 1-2-3-4-5-6 has an appearance probability equal to any
other lotto-6 combination."
Statistically, however, that statement has never come true. Truth
consists of more than one element. There is, indeed, an individual
probability, p. But that leads immediately to the probability of an
event of individual probability p to appear within the next N number
of trials…
This can be a most generalized probability statement:
"Perfect shapes have an appearance probability equal to any other
shape in nature."
Statistically, however, that statement has never come true in known
nature.
We can say many things and approve them as correct theoretically. But
if data invalidates statements presumed correct theoretically, then
such statements cannot be included in the TRUTH category. No idea is
correct if invalidated by consistent data analysis. The larger the
data set, the more consistent the analysis is. The more frequent the
results of data analysis, the closer to the truth the statement must
be.
All the combination sets I wrote about in this post are freely
available from my FTP site:
http://www.saliu.com/infodown.html
The files in discussion can be found in this self-extracting archive:
SYSTEM6.EXE. The files are, in alphabetical order: CDEX.49, GENER.49,
WHEEL49.36. The real draws file I used as a benchmark was UK-6
(without the bonus number; bonus is bogus to me). I just uploaded it
to my FTP site:
ftp://saliu.com/pub/UK-6
You can use my freeware WINNERS.EXE to check for winners in lotto
files. The program is very easy to use. I make the following remarks
with no intention to offend your computer intelligence. WINNERS.EXE
takes an input file (eg: an output file of combinations) and checks
for winners against a file of real lotto draws. That's the most
intuitive flow. The flow can be reversed, however: check the draws in
a real data file against the combinations in an output file. The
program shows, if applicable, that combination number N:
C1-C2-C3-C4-C5-C6 had an H-hit in draw number D.
The input files I used in this thread were: CDEX.49, GENER.49,
WHEEL49.36. I checked the combinations in that file against the real
draws in UK-6. Anybody can replicate with any other combination file
and real draws file. Of course, you can be the only judge of your
analyses. Since verification is not possible, the following
requirement cannot be achieved:
"Trust, but verify."
Anybody can also expand the analysis to wheels of smaller caliber.
But, again, you can be truthful to yourself only. Play, for example,
an 18-number wheel. Write down also an equal number of random
combinations consisting of those 18 numbers. Write down the results,
IF your 18 numbers had winners. Count the results for more than 100
winning situations. As I said in my starting post, WHEEL49.36 had a
quick 5-winner. I think it happened in South Africa lotto game. If I
remember well, it was a visitor to my website who informed me on the
5-winner event. Then, I corroborated that with the "perfect balance"
WHEEL49.36 offered. Nevertheless, I can see now that WHEEL49.36 does
not have the closest average to the average in the UK-6 result file.
Version 8.1 of my freeware FORMULA.EXE can calculate (among many
calculations!) the averages of lottery files. The averages in the
files analyzed in this thread are as follows:
UK-6 -> 25.385
GENER.49 -> 24.996
CDEX.49 -> 24.888
WHEEL49.36 -> 24.732
As we can see, the averages are ranked according to the performances
of the respective files. I do not draw a conclusion from the ranking.
More analyzing is needed. By the way, the average of the combination
1-2-3-4-5-6 is: 3.5. Wow! That's rocket science!
Has lotto wheeling become some sort of a religion? Have I trespassed a
cult territory? As we all know, cult followers behave quite closely to
insanity, in general. Is there anything we can do about it, other than
turning away? Perhaps, keep posting?
Ion Saliu
PS
"Wheeling lotto numbers will yield equal results to playing random
combinations."
But then, again, why pay a price for ‘equal'? Equal is priceless…
PSS
You don't need to pay anything, absolutely nothing to help your
lottery activity. Nothing for wheels, nothing for software, nothing
for strategies. The best is totally free, although I do not state that
everything is available. The regulars know about it, but they don't
talk about it. You can get it at the link following. If fairness
crosses one's mind, then one should let friends know about it.
http://www.saliu.com/
IS
Ion Saliu
>
> gARY
All right, awright, OK! Finally, let's acknowledge the little mouse
that licks empty glasses and bottles in pubs of the great Albion! So
be it recognized!
Ion Saliu
gARY
>
> All right, awright, OK!
You'll do for me! (so far)
You now 'acknowledge' also that you just WILL NOT admit you're wrong? Just a
tiny bit?
It is the easiest thing in the World to run 'another's work' down OR
'manipulate the conversation' on the other hand it takes a man to admit
their wrong and/or stick to the thread (as above??)! Where you going this
time.................???
> Finally, let's acknowledge the little mouse
> that licks empty glasses and bottles in pubs of the great Albion! So
> be it recognized!
>
> Ion Saliu
OK, lets go this way then.............^^^^
Sink this one down your gullet..............
"WE LEARN QUICKER BY OUR OWN MISTAKES" IF you can 'acknowledge' there is
one (1), do you Ion?
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 (by thy piss-ed)
Just asking,
gARY
BTW. I used to like you Ion, I still do really....can I pat you on the head
with a pick axe? ;)
Robert Perkis
Tonight's 05/09/03 DC Hot-5 lotto draw = 4-6-8-9-10
hifi
The best post 2003 for my money !
Duncan Smith
"Ion Saliu" <isa...@onebox.com> wrote in message
news:f2567897.03050...@posting.google.com...
> The best the "wheelists" have produced so far to defend their "cause"
> can be summarized as:
>
> "Wheeling lotto numbers will yield equal results to playing random
> combinations."
>
No, not equal. The same expected number of wins in each category. But not
equal results (that's the whole point). (I can already sense you're going
to have trouble interpreting this.)
> At best for their cause, they may be correct. It's a similar situation
> to this one:
>
> "Combination 1-2-3-4-5-6 has an appearance probability equal to any
> other lotto-6 combination."
>
> Statistically, however, that statement has never come true.
Never come true? It either is true, or isn't true. It doesn't *come* true.
Truth
> consists of more than one element. There is, indeed, an individual
> probability, p. But that leads immediately to the probability of an
> event of individual probability p to appear within the next N number
> of trials.
>
This is actually true, but I fear you don't really understand how to perform
such calculations.
> This can be a most generalized probability statement:
>
> "Perfect shapes have an appearance probability equal to any other
> shape in nature."
>
Back to the gibberish.
> Statistically, however, that statement has never come true in known
> nature.
>
Again, statements / hypotheses don't *come* true.
> We can say many things and approve them as correct theoretically.
We?
But
> if data invalidates statements presumed correct theoretically, then
> such statements cannot be included in the TRUTH category. No idea is
> correct if invalidated by consistent data analysis.
Hurray! I've never been knocked down and killed by a car. Apparently this
makes the event impossible. I feel much safer now.
The larger the
> data set, the more consistent the analysis is. The more frequent the
> results of data analysis, the closer to the truth the statement must
> be.
>
> All the combination sets I wrote about in this post are freely
> available from my FTP site:
> http://www.saliu.com/infodown.html
> The files in discussion can be found in this self-extracting archive:
> SYSTEM6.EXE. The files are, in alphabetical order: CDEX.49, GENER.49,
> WHEEL49.36. The real draws file I used as a benchmark was UK-6
> (without the bonus number; bonus is bogus to me). I just uploaded it
> to my FTP site:
> ftp://saliu.com/pub/UK-6
>
> You can use my freeware WINNERS.EXE to check for winners in lotto
> files. The program is very easy to use. I make the following remarks
> with no intention to offend your computer intelligence.
Yes, you wouldn't want to insult anyone's intelligence.
To what purpose?
> As we can see, the averages are ranked according to the performances
> of the respective files. I do not draw a conclusion from the ranking.
> More analyzing is needed. By the way, the average of the combination
> 1-2-3-4-5-6 is: 3.5. Wow! That's rocket science!
>
> Has lotto wheeling become some sort of a religion? Have I trespassed a
> cult territory?
Not quite cult territory. But you're only one letter out.
Duncan
Ion Saliu
Now, Joytsar, PhD is down; Aint Iain Duncan Smith, PhD is up. I sent
you into a forced timeout after the ‘Aint Iain Duncan Smith Tis
Demented Astrologist' thread. Let's consider your timeout ‘somehow'
successful. You learnt to play with words. It's ‘somehow' successful,
not successful!
It is true that the Earth and the Moon can collide, as negligible as
that probability p (not pee-value) may be. Luckily, however, that
event has not ‘come true'. The probability is much higher that a car
can kill you, especially when you are not supervised. It is true to a
degree calculated by FFG. (Is FFG still your nightmare? Why don't you
sell that mare, Boober Zan?) Fortunately, that event has not ‘come
true'. But don't you get intoxicated and gaze at the stars and the
moon in the middle of the road! Forget about plotting sky charts! The
probability of your being killed by a car jumps by orders of
magnitude! FFG ‘almost ‘ guarantees you get killed within 5 trials.
Don't you try it even once, old chap!
Probability defines events as ‘true with a degree of certainty'.
Nothing is absolutely true, or absolutely certain.
Statistics defines events that ‘come true'. That's data. A datum is an
event of probability p that ‘came true'. A datum has a frequency in a
data series. The frequency is determined by the individual probability
and is closely defined by the normal probability rule.
> "Combination 1-2-3-4-5-6 has an appearance probability equal to any
> other lotto-6 combination."
>
> Statistically, however, that statement has never come true.
There is no 1-2-3-4-5-6 draw in any legitimate lottery history file.
That's statistics. The lotto numbers have positional medians. The
medians get closer to their theoretical values drawing by drawing. (I
use ‘drawing' as being more common in the de facto lingua franca:
Communication English, or WWW Language.) It may take an astronomical
number of drawings (trials) to see 1-2-3-4-5-6 come true – i.e. being
drawn.
> "Perfect shapes have an appearance probability equal to any other
> shape in nature."
>
> Statistically, however, that statement has never come true in known
> nature.
Humans know a huge area of the Universe. There is absolutely no
evidence of a perfect shape in the Universe, other than perfect shapes
created by Homo sapiens.
Ion Saliu
http://www.saliu.com/
hifi
> BTW. I used to like you Ion, I still do really....can I pat you on the head
> with a pick axe? ;)
gRY. Ion gRY.
gARY
> "gARY" wrote.
> > BTW. I used to like you Ion, I still do really....can I pat you on the
> > head with a pick axe? ;)
>
> gRY. Ion gRY.
gRY. Ion gRY Dip gRY
You got anything to say half sensible? Let alone to do with lotto.
If you had two (2) brains one (1) would be lonely!
Looks like ya boy friend (BTW. I don't think 'HE' knows) is not going to be
able to bail you out this time!!
Wake up dip!
gARY
Duncan Smith
> Aint Iain:
>
> Now, Joytsar, PhD is down; Aint Iain Duncan Smith, PhD is up. I sent
> you into a forced timeout after the 'Aint Iain Duncan Smith Tis
> Demented Astrologist' thread.
Does it not occur to you that I occasionally have better things to do than
to respond to your gibberish (but I'm bored with work for the moment).
Let's consider your timeout 'somehow'
> successful. You learnt to play with words. It's 'somehow' successful,
> not successful!
>
> It is true that the Earth and the Moon can collide, as negligible as
> that probability p (not pee-value) may be.
Correct, not a p-value. But what do you think a p-value is?
Luckily, however, that
> event has not 'come true'. The probability is much higher that a car
> can kill you, especially when you are not supervised. It is true to a
> degree calculated by FFG. (Is FFG still your nightmare? Why don't you
> sell that mare, Boober Zan?)
Again with the FFG.
Fortunately, that event has not 'come
> true'. But don't you get intoxicated and gaze at the stars and the
> moon in the middle of the road! Forget about plotting sky charts! The
> probability of your being killed by a car jumps by orders of
> magnitude! FFG 'almost ' guarantees you get killed within 5 trials.
> Don't you try it even once, old chap!
>
> Probability defines events as 'true with a degree of certainty'.
Does it? It kinda depends how you define probability. Have you suddenly
come over all Bayesian?
> Nothing is absolutely true, or absolutely certain.
> Statistics defines events that 'come true'. That's data. A datum is an
> event of probability p that 'came true'. A datum has a frequency in a
> data series. The frequency is determined by the individual probability
> and is closely defined by the normal probability rule.
>
I'm guessing you don't actually know what a statistic is. BTW data are not
always characterised by frequencies. And please tell us what this 'normal
probability rule' is.
> > "Combination 1-2-3-4-5-6 has an appearance probability equal to any
> > other lotto-6 combination."
> >
> > Statistically, however, that statement has never come true.
> There is no 1-2-3-4-5-6 draw in any legitimate lottery history file.
> That's statistics. The lotto numbers have positional medians. The
> medians get closer to their theoretical values drawing by drawing.
Well as a statistician I have to say, duh. If you actually understood why
this tendency exists you would be able to abandon your rubbish about FFG and
positional medians.
(I
> use 'drawing' as being more common in the de facto lingua franca:
> Communication English, or WWW Language.) It may take an astronomical
> number of drawings (trials) to see 1-2-3-4-5-6 come true - i.e. being
> drawn.
>
Maybe even 13,983,816 on average.
Duncan
Vorschprung Durch Technik
>Aint Iain:
Too lateral for me. Learn to communicate ya prat.
>Now, Joytsar, PhD is down; Aint Iain Duncan Smith, PhD is up. I sent
>you into a forced timeout after the ‘Aint Iain Duncan Smith Tis
>Demented Astrologist' thread.
What the F--k are you rambling on about?
>Let's consider your timeout ‘somehow'
>successful. You learnt to play with words. It's ‘somehow' successful,
>not successful!
eRR.... Can someone translate this sh=t.
>It is true that the Earth and the Moon can collide, as negligible as
>that probability p (not pee-value) may be. Luckily, however, that
>event has not ‘come true'. The probability is much higher that a car
>can kill you, especially when you are not supervised.
Throws a bit of reality in here then links it with utter dross.
>It is true to a
>degree calculated by FFG. (Is FFG still your nightmare? Why don't you
>sell that mare, Boober Zan?)
Yep. Dross.
>Fortunately, that event has not ‘come
>true'. But don't you get intoxicated and gaze at the stars and the
>moon in the middle of the road!
Another translation?
>Forget about plotting sky charts! The
>probability of your being killed by a car jumps by orders of
>magnitude! FFG ‘almost ‘ guarantees you get killed within 5 trials.
>Don't you try it even once, old chap!
Err.... Sheesh, this dik-ed is a real pr-t.
>Probability defines events as ‘true with a degree of certainty'.
>Nothing is absolutely true, or absolutely certain.
>Statistics defines events that ‘come true'.
Bull-Sh-t. Statistics only averages events. So how come you are
being so 'accurate'?
>That's data. A datum is an
>event of probability p that ‘came true'. A datum has a frequency in a
>data series. The frequency is determined by the individual probability
>and is closely defined by the normal probability rule.
Using words that normal people don't use. Trying to link your ideas
with science still makes your ideas pseudo-science!
>> "Combination 1-2-3-4-5-6 has an appearance probability equal to any
>> other lotto-6 combination."
My god, he got something right. Now let's see what he is going to
link it to :c) Yep. Nuffin.
>> Statistically, however, that statement has never come true.
>There is no 1-2-3-4-5-6 draw in any legitimate lottery history file.
>That's statistics.
Ya gotta have a better explanation than that !!
Thats 'statistics' .
So, we gotta shut up 'cos he said 'that's statistics'. Jesus H
Christ.
Small minds use broad brushes.
Seems similar to the old crow that wanted to sell her ideas of
clairvoyance. A broad brush ....
>The lotto numbers have positional medians. The
>medians get closer to their theoretical values drawing by drawing. (I
>use ‘drawing' as being more common in the de facto lingua franca:
>Communication English, or WWW Language.) It may take an astronomical
>number of drawings (trials) to see 1-2-3-4-5-6 come true – i.e. being
>drawn.
If your programming is in the same league as your English then I
recommend no-one downloads anything you have written.
>> "Perfect shapes have an appearance probability equal to any other
>> shape in nature."
You jump lateral and vertical but you leave the comments with NO
meaning. Take some lessons in communiction skills. PLEASE.
In any case this is my strategy and you are teasing the group.
If you doubt then mail Nik. ( I now think that Nik is you)
You know Nik: The guy you claim on your web-site has the best answer
to beat the lottery. From your description it is clear that the
details reflect the ideas I have discussed with him in private
messages.
>> Statistically, however, that statement has never come true in known
>> nature.
What EEEEFFFFing statement???
Your clarity is non existant.
You must be refeering to 1,2,3,4,5,6 This is NOT a statement.
You are still referring to my strategy. There are sub levels to this
post and you are a very sneaky person. I wonder why you have done
this. I reckon I know but let's see where this goes.
>Humans know a huge area of the Universe.
Absolute crap.
>There is absolutely no
>evidence of a perfect shape in the Universe, other than perfect shapes
>created by Homo sapiens.
Define 'Perfect' and 'Shape'.
Pseudo-science. You are very skilled in mixing scientific and
mathematical words with garbage.
You could explain yourself better. If you decide to respond then I
may explain what you are talking about in much simpler terms. I am
very angry that Nik (Sharon) has given yoiu details of my strategy and
now you are making comments based on that same strategy., Get ready
for some real pain boyo, Much worse than that directed at you by
CDEX. You have no right to discuss my strategy whether obviously or
indirectly. Unless, it seems to me, you are trying to claim the idea
by default, in which case I have priority.
Awaiting your response Nik !! or is it Saliu.
You have sent this message to two newsgroups. Is there a reason for
this?
>Ion Saliu
>http://www.saliu.com/
Ion Saliu
If your lone goal is to hunt for my posts and say "gibberish" or
"rubbish", you should know that you must back up your negative
reactions. I am talking now as I would to a sane person. You know that
it's not about our personal reactions. It's how our presentation is
received by a group of people. We must substantiate our opinions,
logically and factually. The more data we present, the higher the
reception of our ideas, or presentations, or even reactions. Of
course, you can say "gibberish" or "rubbish" in reaction to my ideas.
But all sane persons expect substantiation from a sane person.
Otherwise, "gibberish" or "rubbish" only satisfies the need to
alleviate the pain by an insane person in his place of isolation.
On the other hand, you may only be paid to act insanely. That may be
the reason why you and your institution do not file lawsuit against
me. Too many things would have to ‘come true' – i.e. reach the
surface. Besides, the real Duncan Smith might hit you and your
institution with an even more devastating lawsuit.
So, this is how it works. You only say "gibberish" and "rubbish". You
must substantiate immediately for people to consider you sane. Since
my statements were backed by real data—repeat, real data—you had the
opportunity to produce real data to prove my ideas incorrect. Well,
you have never, ever presented real data publicly; it must be that
there is no data to prove me wrong. Otherwise you would have used it.
You only have "gibberish-and-rubbish". Touting it is interpreted as
insanity by the vast majority of people. It's not even a case of the
milder PhD Bomide syndrome. It's worse, get it?
Think data, old chap. Roll up your sleeves and look for data.
Ion Saliu
http://www.saliu.com/
Ion Saliu
Bien sur. Everybody can run my freeware COMBINATIONS.EXE. If we select
a game with the last number = 6 and drawing 6 numbers per combination,
guess what? 1-2-3-4-5-6 is the only combination generated!. Hello,
hello, hello! Thanks for letting me know! We can see now the magical
combination 1-2-3-4-5-6 every day! Send it to Boober Zan or Joytsar,
please. They can't run my software: It's too intelligent for their
brains…
Ion Saliu
http://www.saliu.com/
Duncan Smith
>
LOL
Duncan
Duncan Smith
>
> If your lone goal is to hunt for my posts and say "gibberish" or
> "rubbish", you should know that you must back up your negative
> reactions.
Of course, how on earth could I have thought that "Now, Joytsar, PhD is
down; Aint Iain Duncan Smith, PhD is up. I sent you into a forced timeout
after the 'Aint Iain Duncan Smith Tis Demented Astrologist' thread." was
gibberish.
I am talking now as I would to a sane person. You know that
> it's not about our personal reactions. It's how our presentation is
> received by a group of people. We must substantiate our opinions,
> logically and factually.
I've asked you to do that before, but you don't. e.g. when I asked you to
consider that your probability distribution that summed to 1.2 must be
wrong. Your response, rounding errors. Hmm.
The more data we present, the higher the
> reception of our ideas, or presentations, or even reactions. Of
> course, you can say "gibberish" or "rubbish" in reaction to my ideas.
Because giving you details of exactly where you're wrong usually results in
insults, followed by a post about 3 months later containing the corrections
and a claim that you did it all on your own.
> But all sane persons expect substantiation from a sane person.
> Otherwise, "gibberish" or "rubbish" only satisfies the need to
> alleviate the pain by an insane person in his place of isolation.
>
> On the other hand, you may only be paid to act insanely. That may be
> the reason why you and your institution do not file lawsuit against
> me. Too many things would have to 'come true' - i.e. reach the
> surface. Besides, the real Duncan Smith might hit you and your
> institution with an even more devastating lawsuit.
So that would be NOT gibberish would it?
>
> So, this is how it works. You only say "gibberish" and "rubbish". You
> must substantiate immediately for people to consider you sane. Since
> my statements were backed by real data-repeat, real data-you had the
> opportunity to produce real data to prove my ideas incorrect.
That really is not how to do it Ion. If you have a mathematical problem,
then do the maths. Don't write some ropy code, get some simulation results,
then try to fit some maths to the data. NB your gibberish (yes, gibberish)
relating to your wonderful software that provides the user with 2 options
for the same problem (because your ropy data / mind has convinced you that
the correct answer is wrong). eg. from a recent post,
" 2) 1000 total persons, p=1/1000
2.1. 'exactly 1 Bong by shaking 14 hands:
2.1.a: using option E: probability is 1.3819%
2.1.b: using option H: probability is 16.5141% (it is way, way, way to
hi for 1000 total cases!)
2.1.c: 'at least 1 Bong', using option L: probability is 1.3909% (the
most reasonable, validated by data analysis)."
Option E, Option H? Validated by data analysis? Just do the maths.
Well,
> you have never, ever presented real data publicly; it must be that
> there is no data to prove me wrong.
Historically I've given you plenty of maths that do that.
Duncan
CDEX
Ion Saliu wrote:
> The best the "wheelists" have produced so far to defend their "cause"
> can be summarized as:
>
> "Wheeling lotto numbers will yield equal results to playing random
> combinations."
No. They will approach equality as you extend your data sample.
Inasmuch as you've never (_never_) extended your data beyond fragmented
snippets:
... of South Africa 6/49 matching (finding one 5-number match in your
wheel and boosting it to a claim of 'three times better than any other
similar set of lines lines, in any game, worldwide' falsehood),
... of UK 6/49 matching (in 758 draws, claiming it's a 'benchmark' for
testing),
... your statement above is not surprising.
You've been shown that the _total_ matches at every prize level are
identical between two sets of lines of the same Pick level and line count.
But you've been shown that the _distribution_ of those matches is different,
according to how equalized the matches are in a properly-constructed wheel
versus the 'holes' and 'redundancy' in matches in random lines.
Lottery playing is a linear process, Ion, in time. Your 6/49 game does not
draw all 13,983,816 combinations next Saturday night. It does it over the
course of years, one combination at a time.
You'll approach parity between the wheeled and random lines _only_ when you
extend the sample space.
Say: "Same To-tals". Repeat.
Say: "Dif-fer-ent Dis-tri-bu-tion". Repeat.
- - -
You wrote:
> "Combination 1-2-3-4-5-6 has an appearance probability equal to any
> other lotto-6 combination."
>
> Statistically, however, that statement has never come true.
So what? Do you assert that "has never" has the same relevance to you as
"will never" or "must never"?
Do you suppose that combination has other than 1/13,983,816 chance in a 6/49
game?
Save words. Don't assert unless it's relevant.
This next sequence is at the core of your problem with wheeling, Ion. It
has two parts, coming one immediately after the other.
>
> No idea is correct if invalidated by consistent data analysis.
> The larger the data set, the more consistent the analysis is.
> The more frequent the results of data analysis, the closer to
> the truth the statement must be.
OK so far. But now that's followed directly in your next paragraph by this:
> All the combination sets I wrote about in this post are freely
> available from my FTP site:
> http://www.saliu.com/infodown.html
> The files in discussion can be found in this self-extracting archive:
> SYSTEM6.EXE. The files are, in alphabetical order: CDEX.49, GENER.49,
> WHEEL49.36. The real draws file I used as a benchmark was UK-6
> (without the bonus number; bonus is bogus to me). I just uploaded it
> to my FTP site ftp://saliu.com/pub/UK-6
You pay mouth service to this concept:
... "the larger the data set, the more consistent the analysis is.",
and
... "the more frequent the results of data analysis, the closer to the
truth the statement must be."
But the _only_ so-called "benchmark" you use for testing your three
wheels is one 6/49 game, with 758 draws. It's a tiny data sample. It
barely exercises the subsets in a 6/49 game. Your data are irrelevant to
any player in another 6/49 game. In fact your data are irrelevant to the
players of the next 758 draws in the same game.
You take tiny snippets of data, and you make sweeping generalizations like
"wheeling merely accelerates the player's losses". Then you follow that by
sending readers to download your latest wheels. Then you follow that, four
days later, by advising people not to play them. Prior to all of that, you
pushed your 416-line wheel as having '3 times' as many 5-winners as a
similar wheel in any game, worldwide. That claim was proved false in the
entire databases of 16 public lottery games.
You blab platitudes about using sufficient data, like you've done above --
but you avoid doing it in practice. And when such data is spoon-fed to you
by others (15,114 draws in 16 public 6/49 lottery games), plus (complete
matching details for different sets of lines, at every prize level) -- you
ignore it and toss out irrational insults and name-calling against those
people.
You've been given a lot of charitable handouts in the form of free and
comprehensive data. Those data completely contradict your assertions about
wheels. You keep coming back with the same mediocrity in your wheeling
work, like that above. Sooner or later you'll need to see that it doesn't
serve you well -- to keep biting the hands that feed you all the detailed
wheel testing and data that you are apparently too lazy or incompetent to do
yourself.
Joe Roberts
CDEX
hifi
>
> Again with the FFG.
>
abandon your rubbish about FFG and > positional medians.
>
You're the first man killed by a formula.
The victim of FFG.
Rest in peace!
Amen.
Nigel
Evil Nigel
Duncan Smith
"Nigel" <ni...@loud-n-clear.com> wrote in message
news:3EC0C1...@loud-n-clear.com...
> Showing my age now, but I can remember when LOL stood for 'Lots Of Love'.
>
> Evil Nigel
>
Hmm? OK then. ROFLOL, just to be absolutely clear :-).
Duncan
CDEX
Ion Saliu wrote:
>
> All right, awright, OK! Finally, let's acknowledge the little mouse
> that licks empty glasses and bottles in pubs of the great Albion!
> So be it recognized!
>
> Ion Saliu
If you are done with your juvenile name-calling, and if you are done with
your erratic shifting away from the subject of wheeling:
... Take a look at the thread titled: "Request for Wheel Test".
... It started yesterday, 16 May 2003.
... Look at the data that resulted in the testing of two sets of
combinations:
........ one set of combinations that is wheeled, and
........ one set of combinations that that is grossly unbalanced.
It shows the utter falsehood in your assertion that "wheeling merely
accelerates the player's losses."
Joe Roberts
CDEX
Ion Saliu
I created a lotto-5 file based on positional ranges. Each position
consists of 77% of all the numbers drawn in that position. The FFG
median was calculated based on 672 draws in FL 5/36 lotto game. I
randomized the range file and created an input file for WheelIn5.exe.
I wheeled in the input file for the ‘3 of 5' condition: 307
combinations. Then, WheelIn5.exe randomly pulled in 307 combinations
from the input file.
LOTTO-5 Winning Number Checking
Files: POS536.35 (307) against > FL-536.TXT (672)
Date: 05-19-2003
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Line Combinations 5 4 3 2
no. Checked Hits Hits Hits
Hits
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1 4 5 21 29 30 in draw #
3
1 4 5 21 29 30 in draw # 13
1 4 5 21 29 30 in draw # 26
1 4 5 21 29 30 in draw #
31
1 4 5 21 29 30 in draw #
32
....
113 1 7 15 22 30 in draw #
491
113 1 7 15 22 30 in draw # 500
113 1 7 15 22 30 in draw #
509
307 7 17 19 21 31 in draw #
655
307 7 17 19 21 31 in draw #
659
307 7 17 19 21 31 in draw # 665
307 7 17 19 21 31 in draw # 672
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Hits: 1 66 2508
24607
LOTTO-5 Winning Number Checking
Files: RAND5.35 (307) against > FL-536.TXT (672)
Date: 05-19-2003
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Line Combinations 5 4 3 2
no. Checked Hits Hits Hits
Hits
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1 3 4 17 23 27 in draw # 1
1 3 4 17 23 27 in draw # 3
1 3 4 17 23 27 in draw #
17
...
307 2 10 20 23 30 in draw #
657
307 2 10 20 23 30 in draw #
667
307 2 10 20 23 30 in draw #
670
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Hits: 0 93 2613 24438
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly, the fully randomized set performed better at the ‘3 of 5' and
‘4 of 5' levels. The ‘3 of 5' wheeled set performed better at the ‘2
of 5' level. The better performance at the ‘5 of 5' level should be
ignored. I always ignore one hit or a difference of 1 in hits. Such a
difference can easily change the other way.
The files are listed in two separate posts following this one.
Ion Saliu
Ion Saliu
---------
4 6 8 23 36
2 9 13 28 30
7 12 13 27 28
3 9 18 21 33
6 14 15 27 33
1 2 12 20 33
2 4 24 25 35
6 7 9 20 29
8 15 21 25 30
6 7 19 22 36
5 16 19 24 33
9 17 19 25 34
1 5 14 21 28
5 11 16 21 35
1 2 13 34 36
3 7 22 23 29
1 7 9 22 35
1 8 10 19 34
6 7 21 28 33
2 3 8 23 31
2 10 24 29 33
2 14 17 29 36
3 6 21 22 34
1 6 19 23 31
4 17 19 22 35
6 8 11 27 35
3 8 11 28 29
2 4 9 31 33
3 5 10 27 34
9 15 16 31 35
8 14 19 25 33
5 6 17 22 33
7 9 15 21 36
3 9 19 27 28
8 13 21 28 35
3 10 18 32 36
4 6 10 20 28
2 6 22 26 31
8 16 18 24 34
5 12 17 28 35
2 9 10 22 36
7 10 23 33 35
5 8 19 23 32
3 16 19 26 29
4 13 20 23 29
7 11 18 19 27
5 16 18 26 32
7 13 14 33 34
4 5 12 26 27
4 10 13 30 32
7 9 10 30 34
4 7 24 31 32
2 5 11 24 28
6 12 13 21 29
8 11 14 34 36
1 8 15 22 36
1 2 7 27 31
4 12 16 28 32
5 11 18 33 36
2 4 20 32 36
2 4 5 19 29
2 17 22 32 34
8 10 16 20 32
2 12 14 22 35
2 7 16 19 35
5 7 15 19 34
1 12 14 27 29
5 12 20 22 31
4 16 18 27 33
1 15 18 32 33
3 5 13 25 33
5 9 20 35 36
4 8 18 21 32
4 15 18 22 29
6 16 17 28 31
7 14 17 25 32
6 15 18 20 31
2 15 20 21 34
7 11 24 26 36
3 13 23 26 36
5 6 13 30 34
1 6 9 33 36
7 12 19 25 31
1 14 18 23 34
9 10 19 31 32
7 12 23 30 36
3 17 24 26 30
2 5 10 25 30
5 14 23 25 29
1 4 16 29 31
4 9 11 21 34
1 11 20 30 36
2 16 22 30 33
9 17 20 23 32
4 8 22 26 30
9 11 23 29 33
4 9 14 28 35
4 11 15 25 32
3 16 17 25 27
1 17 21 26 27
8 9 17 30 36
3 17 19 21 36
4 5 16 25 34
3 11 22 33 35
7 11 22 28 32
5 13 17 29 31
1 3 11 31 34
9 12 17 22 27
4 7 10 26 29
5 17 24 32 36
6 9 21 30 32
4 13 18 34 35
4 10 22 23 34
4 5 23 24 30
8 10 11 23 30
8 14 22 29 31
1 16 17 30 32
3 14 20 25 35
1 2 10 21 32
2 9 12 24 32
3 12 15 33 36
3 4 18 28 30
9 13 22 26 29
2 12 21 27 36
3 5 7 31 35
1 3 14 19 32
3 15 21 24 28
1 10 23 28 36
3 15 18 26 34
1 5 16 20 27
2 11 19 21 33
3 6 8 20 30
1 4 19 24 27
3 4 6 26 32
8 9 19 24 35
4 10 15 27 31
6 15 23 25 35
8 12 20 26 36
3 6 10 29 31
2 17 20 30 31
7 8 10 22 27
6 12 18 28 36
8 10 17 21 31
1 5 9 26 30
2 5 15 31 36
3 4 12 21 35
4 8 17 27 34
4 11 14 20 31
6 16 22 27 29
9 10 18 25 35
3 8 13 27 32
1 13 21 24 31
4 11 17 24 33
8 11 13 26 33
8 12 17 23 33
3 4 14 22 36
1 11 15 19 35
1 6 18 27 30
4 15 17 26 28
3 5 18 20 29
9 14 20 30 33
9 16 23 34 36
8 15 23 27 28
4 5 14 32 33
2 9 21 26 35
2 3 12 29 30
5 8 18 25 31
9 11 24 25 31
6 13 17 20 36
7 14 16 20 28
7 9 13 23 31
1 14 16 33 35
4 7 15 30 33
6 12 22 23 32
1 4 13 22 28
6 11 17 29 30
5 9 15 25 27
9 10 12 21 28
1 3 24 29 35
6 14 22 28 30
6 17 18 21 35
7 13 16 21 32
3 10 16 22 28
2 10 16 26 27
6 9 11 26 28
8 13 16 29 30
1 4 18 25 36
6 10 12 25 27
2 13 18 25 27
2 7 8 24 30
7 10 20 31 36
1 3 23 25 30
9 12 14 25 36
2 10 11 31 35
1 9 18 28 31
1 3 7 26 33
2 7 18 28 29
2 5 23 33 34
2 15 23 26 32
8 9 20 27 31
7 14 18 24 35
4 14 24 29 34
9 14 16 24 27
8 15 17 20 35
8 12 15 31 34
3 15 19 30 31
6 10 19 26 35
7 11 15 29 31
5 12 15 21 32
1 11 16 25 28
1 7 24 25 34
3 6 23 24 27
3 16 23 32 33
1 3 17 20 28
6 16 21 24 36
2 15 16 25 29
1 8 9 25 32
7 8 12 29 35
2 3 7 25 36
1 6 15 26 29
8 12 19 22 28
3 9 15 29 32
5 11 14 27 30
5 8 16 28 36
6 12 24 30 31
4 10 21 33 36
1 12 13 32 35
4 14 16 19 30
2 6 13 32 33
5 11 23 26 31
5 13 21 22 36
2 14 18 30 32
7 17 19 28 30
2 11 22 23 27
5 11 20 32 34
6 12 16 20 34
5 17 18 23 27
5 10 14 19 36
9 11 13 32 36
1 6 11 24 32
8 17 18 19 29
2 14 15 19 28
5 7 21 24 29
5 13 14 26 35
3 13 18 22 31
7 16 17 26 34
9 17 24 28 29
4 11 19 28 36
2 3 6 28 35
1 4 23 26 35
4 7 21 23 27
9 15 18 24 30
3 9 14 26 31
6 13 19 25 28
7 12 18 22 33
5 10 15 26 33
7 13 20 26 30
5 15 20 28 30
2 6 8 25 34
6 15 17 19 32
3 10 19 20 33
1 10 12 26 31
4 12 13 31 36
2 15 17 24 27
5 8 22 34 35
1 10 20 22 29
4 17 23 25 31
1 10 17 25 33
3 13 19 24 34
8 14 18 26 28
1 4 12 30 34
8 10 24 25 28
3 7 12 20 32
9 12 18 29 34
6 16 23 26 30
9 15 22 28 34
2 13 17 23 35
5 6 21 27 31
8 14 15 24 32
9 10 13 27 33
3 5 22 30 32
7 8 16 31 33
9 12 16 26 33
7 17 20 27 33
6 7 18 32 34
2 11 20 26 29
6 10 17 24 34
4 6 19 33 34
8 16 19 21 27
3 11 20 21 27
3 10 14 21 30
2 8 18 35 36
6 10 15 30 36
3 12 23 28 34
9 11 12 30 35
3 16 20 24 31
2 12 19 26 34
1 13 19 29 33
5 12 18 19 30
7 16 18 25 30
2 6 19 20 27
6 13 22 24 35
2 14 16 21 31
2 17 21 25 28
7 11 13 25 35
7 8 20 23 34
6 11 20 25 33
9 14 19 21 29
2 17 18 26 33
1 14 15 25 31
1 12 16 19 36
1 8 21 23 29
5 8 20 21 33
-----------
> Ion Saliu
> http://www.saliu.com/
Ion Saliu
---------
3 4 17 23 27
1 10 20 26 34
1 8 19 30 32
9 15 22 25 36
2 9 21 23 36
1 7 24 26 35
3 12 22 29 32
7 10 18 21 35
6 14 17 24 28
2 8 14 26 35
5 7 23 25 27
8 9 13 21 34
3 6 14 21 35
7 14 19 24 36
3 9 18 19 32
3 5 24 28 32
5 10 17 26 27
1 10 13 29 31
9 11 13 27 35
3 8 14 20 29
4 12 13 23 29
1 13 19 24 34
5 13 24 26 33
3 8 10 23 32
4 15 23 31 34
1 2 20 23 27
3 4 14 22 33
6 7 24 29 36
5 7 21 24 31
2 13 14 27 30
4 7 23 24 32
3 8 15 34 36
5 6 17 23 36
8 16 19 22 32
5 6 24 27 28
2 4 5 24 34
1 11 12 25 36
7 16 24 28 32
9 10 21 25 27
2 16 17 30 35
1 8 16 22 32
8 15 18 21 29
2 4 16 24 30
1 15 22 23 30
8 9 10 19 36
4 5 24 31 36
9 14 23 30 36
4 17 22 33 36
4 7 9 21 34
4 7 8 19 33
5 6 23 31 36
2 8 14 23 27
6 11 16 27 28
7 14 23 30 33
7 16 19 28 36
2 4 10 30 36
5 13 22 25 33
7 11 15 23 31
9 16 22 28 36
4 6 8 31 33
1 14 22 26 36
7 9 21 22 34
8 15 16 32 36
2 3 18 25 28
4 6 13 30 31
2 8 14 25 33
1 4 17 25 34
5 10 14 29 34
1 12 17 27 36
9 13 16 21 30
3 11 19 20 32
1 11 15 19 33
2 4 18 30 31
6 7 11 21 28
2 10 24 27 30
8 16 17 28 31
6 8 18 24 32
9 13 15 30 31
5 7 16 21 27
8 17 19 22 31
7 11 14 22 36
1 8 11 24 29
6 11 12 23 31
2 7 16 30 32
9 12 16 20 30
9 11 13 20 35
1 13 20 31 34
5 16 23 34 35
6 8 20 26 36
5 10 18 21 35
8 9 10 25 33
8 15 16 31 36
1 4 6 27 34
4 5 23 25 28
1 4 14 24 29
1 5 7 27 31
4 10 20 31 34
7 8 9 29 33
9 11 17 30 33
5 9 13 31 36
4 9 14 22 31
4 5 7 19 34
8 15 17 35 36
6 10 12 29 34
9 10 14 29 34
2 4 13 29 31
4 17 21 25 35
6 16 18 27 31
8 10 17 21 27
4 8 20 26 28
5 6 16 19 33
6 12 24 28 34
2 10 15 24 28
1 8 13 25 27
1 3 7 28 35
7 10 18 20 35
4 14 20 25 31
6 12 15 20 31
3 10 19 23 31
2 8 16 19 30
7 11 22 30 35
3 13 22 29 33
5 12 17 23 29
5 7 8 21 27
2 14 21 30 34
3 10 21 32 36
5 12 14 19 35
2 7 11 25 29
6 7 14 27 32
8 10 12 20 32
2 15 24 27 31
7 14 16 28 29
4 17 18 25 32
7 10 16 25 31
7 9 19 25 36
3 6 15 27 31
4 10 14 19 34
6 15 21 31 33
5 13 20 28 32
4 6 22 30 33
3 7 23 25 33
1 3 18 25 32
8 16 21 28 33
4 7 18 24 35
2 4 15 25 29
6 9 10 20 33
2 10 14 22 29
1 7 14 28 36
4 9 21 35 36
1 4 11 32 34
1 4 22 30 34
7 13 16 31 33
7 9 18 29 34
2 4 7 21 31
6 8 12 28 35
4 13 18 31 36
2 16 21 24 31
1 6 13 22 34
9 17 20 21 33
6 8 11 19 32
2 10 14 23 30
4 16 18 31 35
3 14 15 28 33
1 4 15 19 33
8 9 13 20 33
2 4 13 20 28
6 11 24 26 28
6 15 22 24 29
3 9 17 26 30
5 9 11 27 36
7 13 23 25 29
3 14 22 32 36
4 12 19 26 27
8 10 14 21 27
3 7 14 29 34
7 9 15 20 32
2 9 11 29 30
3 11 21 28 31
9 15 18 20 31
1 9 24 31 35
1 9 24 27 34
9 15 20 23 32
4 6 13 27 29
3 14 19 20 29
5 7 13 25 33
6 16 20 26 32
2 17 23 29 30
4 5 17 24 36
3 6 11 20 30
4 7 19 23 36
5 11 20 24 33
1 9 23 27 30
6 11 14 26 34
5 10 18 24 35
3 7 15 21 35
7 10 16 27 28
6 7 12 33 36
2 12 22 24 34
9 11 17 28 29
5 8 14 26 27
9 17 23 33 34
2 7 9 20 27
1 4 6 26 32
6 9 13 24 36
5 11 23 30 34
3 8 22 23 32
1 3 9 21 33
1 5 24 31 32
5 6 10 35 36
2 6 7 24 31
6 7 12 20 29
3 10 21 24 32
2 7 20 23 33
2 9 13 20 31
4 15 24 28 30
4 16 23 24 27
2 4 16 33 36
4 8 9 29 35
2 3 7 25 31
2 13 15 28 30
7 9 17 22 34
6 10 22 28 29
1 9 24 30 31
2 5 15 22 27
8 10 15 32 35
3 4 7 27 30
1 5 18 19 33
1 5 11 19 30
2 5 9 27 35
3 17 22 23 35
7 9 18 19 29
8 11 19 30 33
3 9 17 23 35
2 3 10 25 29
2 10 17 31 34
6 7 20 29 35
5 14 20 22 33
9 14 21 25 28
2 8 21 33 36
5 6 24 31 32
9 14 20 23 27
3 5 9 20 31
9 12 23 30 34
1 10 15 20 36
7 9 18 19 30
2 4 11 27 35
1 15 22 28 34
3 15 22 30 33
3 14 23 24 33
6 13 16 33 35
7 13 14 23 34
1 4 5 22 35
2 10 12 27 30
3 15 18 20 32
1 7 16 22 31
2 7 18 25 27
4 6 17 23 32
1 4 20 28 34
6 11 24 27 34
2 8 18 26 34
1 7 22 29 33
8 10 18 21 36
6 7 16 21 31
7 8 15 31 33
9 10 16 24 28
3 17 23 26 34
2 4 21 22 27
1 6 17 23 32
2 16 24 28 35
6 9 19 27 33
1 10 21 29 32
3 7 12 24 36
6 9 14 23 34
1 8 14 29 34
5 11 13 33 36
2 6 19 23 29
3 15 16 26 28
7 10 11 23 30
4 8 12 19 31
5 16 19 23 36
3 13 17 35 36
8 9 14 22 35
8 17 21 25 27
3 6 17 28 36
2 9 12 23 34
3 14 17 20 28
3 17 20 21 28
5 15 22 30 31
6 13 18 19 31
1 11 16 26 34
4 15 20 21 29
3 16 21 30 31
4 16 17 28 29
8 9 12 23 33
2 10 12 24 31
3 10 18 28 29
6 10 23 28 30
7 8 14 25 31
4 11 23 24 35
1 13 23 27 29
1 6 16 28 32
4 12 15 22 27
3 6 8 23 35
1 10 18 32 34
5 12 18 20 33
7 9 23 27 30
2 10 20 23 30
---------
> Ion Saliu
> http://www.saliu.com/
CDEX
Excuse me, Ion, but:
Does your "'3 of 5' wheeled set, 307 lines" have 313 lines?
Joe Roberts
CDEX
Ion Saliu
more step, the set did come down to 307 combinations. I'll post it
below. As a mea culpa token, I post also two ‘1 of 5' 36-number
‘randomized-wheeled' sets. They are optimized for situations when the
draw adds-up to 92 or 93 sum-total. But they guarantee ‘1 of 5' in any
situation.
Many historians of science believe that the term ‘randomized-wheeled
set' was coined by the most famous sons of this community. They wrote
a groundbreaking opus accompanied by a 7-CD set chock-full of freeware
software. The term appeared in the first printing of "Maths Treatise
on Why & How Wheels Spin", CREX Publishing Mouse, Jaxonville,
MCMLXXXVIII. "Randomized" was removed from future printings for the
reason of heresy.
--- ‘1 of 5' 36-number ‘randomized-wheeled' set, 7 lines
(#19 missing)
6 10 16 25 35
9 11 20 22 31
12 14 15 23 29
7 8 18 26 33
3 4 21 28 36
1 13 17 27 34
2 5 24 30 32
--- ‘1 of 5' 36-number ‘randomized-wheeled' set, 7 lines
(#20 missing)
6 8 19 27 33
10 15 17 18 32
1 2 22 31 36
4 5 23 26 34
7 11 21 24 30
3 13 16 25 35
9 12 14 28 29
'3 of 5' 36-number wheeled set, 307 lines
---------•
4 5 21 29 30
3 11 17 26 35
6 11 15 34 36
1 3 14 30 36
1 10 16 23 34
1 4 10 28 29
4 11 19 31 32
9 12 19 27 32
4 6 22 25 30
3 7 11 23 33
6 12 21 33 35
3 14 15 32 33
5 10 20 22 32
7 9 21 23 34
8 17 21 29 34
3 8 12 20 27
4 5 15 28 34
4 9 20 26 36
1 2 6 21 31
3 6 19 33 36
2 12 16 30 34
2 12 19 26 33
1 3 24 26 33
4 8 16 20 31
7 12 20 25 31
7 11 16 31 36
3 12 18 31 36
3 6 17 31 34
7 14 17 23 27
5 12 13 20 29
2 11 23 24 36
3 16 19 20 28
8 10 23 28 35
7 16 21 22 32
9 10 24 31 34
4 6 16 32 36
5 11 13 32 36
5 16 21 26 27
7 13 20 32 35
2 11 13 29 35
1 11 21 23 29
7 14 18 28 30
5 7 22 27 33
6 13 19 20 31
4 9 13 24 33
7 8 24 29 35
1 8 10 25 33
6 9 16 20 27
3 12 13 33 34
9 13 17 20 28
8 13 24 30 36
5 14 24 28 35
2 4 16 23 28
3 5 9 31 33
1 3 5 34 35
6 12 14 24 29
2 12 24 31 35
1 5 7 26 36
8 15 21 23 32
7 10 16 24 27
1 6 22 28 32
9 14 16 29 33
4 10 15 30 35
2 15 17 27 30
1 6 10 26 30
6 10 21 27 36
1 9 19 35 36
2 10 15 20 34
4 14 18 19 29
7 14 21 26 35
5 9 24 30 32
7 17 18 29 33
3 17 18 20 30
5 9 15 27 35
2 17 24 26 32
3 4 18 26 34
1 13 18 25 32
3 8 9 23 30
8 9 15 28 36
1 12 17 24 27
4 5 23 32 35
2 10 17 22 35
1 12 22 23 35
3 11 18 28 29
9 12 23 25 28
9 11 12 29 34
3 14 23 26 29
5 7 23 25 30
4 10 17 26 31
5 13 14 26 31
3 7 15 25 28
9 10 23 29 36
5 10 13 23 27
3 8 19 25 31
4 13 16 21 34
2 10 24 29 33
5 6 8 23 34
4 11 20 28 33
8 11 17 25 36
1 7 21 25 27
6 11 14 25 31
2 4 20 30 32
3 6 10 32 35
8 12 18 24 28
7 8 14 25 32
3 5 24 25 27
3 11 19 21 34
2 12 18 21 27
1 5 8 27 30
2 3 19 27 35
9 16 19 25 30
3 16 17 22 36
1 7 15 22 30
1 7 19 24 28
5 16 18 23 33
2 4 9 25 27
1 15 23 27 36
7 10 20 28 36
4 7 15 19 36
5 11 19 25 28
9 17 18 21 32
5 9 19 22 34
6 8 20 32 33
3 4 20 22 29
1 8 13 22 31
3 13 17 23 32
4 12 17 28 30
6 7 12 27 30
8 9 11 31 35
2 15 18 25 33
1 12 20 26 28
6 9 18 25 34
1 13 15 26 35
2 9 21 26 28
5 6 12 28 31
1 11 16 19 33
4 8 22 26 35
4 13 18 20 27
2 7 15 29 32
3 7 22 31 35
6 8 14 22 36
1 4 8 24 32
1 9 15 20 33
8 10 11 22 29
4 16 18 24 35
2 4 14 21 33
4 5 22 24 31
7 12 17 32 36
2 5 8 35 36
6 7 24 26 34
9 10 16 26 35
2 10 19 23 30
1 4 6 20 34
1 8 11 28 34
8 10 18 34 36
7 10 13 29 30
1 9 22 27 29
5 10 21 28 33
5 17 18 19 27
1 14 16 24 31
7 11 13 27 34
8 12 19 21 30
9 12 17 22 33
6 16 17 25 35
8 13 16 26 29
5 16 17 31 32
2 6 15 19 28
2 6 16 22 29
9 14 18 23 31
2 13 14 20 36
7 16 17 28 34
6 7 18 19 35
7 9 14 24 36
1 11 18 22 36
1 15 17 28 31
2 3 8 22 32
5 12 21 24 34
2 8 11 30 33
6 11 18 26 33
2 9 19 29 31
1 5 19 21 32
3 15 24 29 34
1 14 19 27 34
2 14 24 25 34
8 15 19 26 27
8 9 18 27 33
6 10 20 25 29
2 14 22 30 31
1 11 20 30 31
9 11 14 28 32
9 14 17 34 35
4 9 15 21 31
8 14 15 20 29
5 14 19 23 36
6 11 22 24 27
3 13 21 25 35
4 12 23 29 33
8 12 14 31 33
7 8 20 30 34
2 15 16 21 36
2 7 8 27 31
4 17 19 33 34
1 4 17 21 36
6 11 16 21 28
4 11 23 25 34
1 17 22 25 34
9 13 14 21 27
4 11 15 26 29
5 6 11 30 35
6 9 13 22 35
3 7 9 26 27
4 13 23 26 30
5 17 22 23 29
5 10 18 30 31
6 16 23 26 31
3 4 12 25 32
8 12 23 26 36
9 10 20 21 30
1 2 13 28 30
2 17 23 31 33
7 13 15 31 33
5 15 19 30 33
3 15 16 23 35
5 7 14 29 34
5 11 17 24 33
7 13 22 23 36
2 3 10 28 31
6 14 20 23 30
3 10 22 27 34
2 10 13 21 32
7 10 19 26 32
8 10 17 27 32
2 6 18 30 36
2 7 9 33 35
1 16 20 25 36
2 7 21 24 30
2 6 12 23 32
6 13 17 29 36
3 8 14 21 28
6 8 17 26 28
8 14 16 19 35
5 12 22 25 36
9 12 18 20 35
3 16 21 29 31
9 10 18 22 28
6 10 15 22 31
8 15 16 25 34
5 13 16 22 30
1 10 14 20 35
2 4 22 34 36
1 17 19 29 30
3 5 22 26 28
1 6 13 23 33
4 12 14 26 27
8 16 22 24 33
6 13 24 25 28
6 10 14 28 34
2 16 18 19 32
3 11 16 24 32
2 12 17 25 29
4 8 11 21 27
3 10 11 25 30
5 11 15 23 31
5 8 18 25 29
7 12 22 26 29
6 7 9 31 32
2 10 11 26 27
4 13 14 22 28
5 17 20 34 36
7 16 19 23 29
3 4 16 27 33
2 8 13 19 34
9 11 21 33 36
1 2 18 29 34
1 12 15 32 34
9 15 22 25 32
9 11 22 26 30
7 11 12 28 35
6 15 18 27 29
3 4 10 24 36
2 5 20 27 28
3 15 20 26 31
9 13 15 30 34
1 9 23 26 32
3 4 9 28 35
3 12 22 24 30
4 10 18 32 33
2 13 16 25 31
3 6 15 21 30
3 9 20 32 34
4 11 14 35 36
1 10 12 19 31
1 16 21 30 35
7 14 19 20 33
1 4 7 23 31
3 6 23 27 28
5 15 18 24 36
6 14 17 19 32
4 12 13 19 35
5 6 15 26 32
2 6 20 26 35
3 5 10 19 29
1 16 18 27 28
1 12 18 30 33
8 15 17 33 35
1 11 24 25 35
7 17 19 21 31
---------•
Ion Saliu
http://www.saliu.com
gARY
> Sorry! I posted an older '3 of 5' wheeled set, 313 lines. After one
> more step, the set did come down to 307 combinations.
But this one has 4'768 combinations of 3if5, missing Ion!!!
What was the deciding factor to stop the wheel at 307blocks as it clearly
was not 100% of the said covering??
You could play 100% for 176blocks although to be fair, positional limits
would not be taken into account.
gARY
CDEX
> ...
> Many historians of science believe that the term 'randomized-wheeled
> set' was coined by the most famous sons of this community. They wrote
> a groundbreaking opus accompanied by a 7-CD set chock-full of freeware
> software. The term appeared in the first printing of "Maths Treatise
> on Why & How Wheels Spin", CREX Publishing Mouse, Jaxonville,
> MCMLXXXVIII. "Randomized" was removed from future printings for the
> reason of heresy.
>
When you reply to a post about the amount of combinations in a wheel ...
one always hopes you will try to be on-topic without juvenile behavior like
the above. One is too often disappointed.
In the past you've insulted people who asked questions about your wheels as
"stinking" and "thief". That's been your type of reply, without acting on
the wheel data that was given to you.
In the past you've insulted the designer of one of the world's truly
outstanding cover programs as follows: "Obviously, you don't have dedicated
software to check 'lotto wheels'. ...I don't think you know what 'lotto
wheeling' is". That also has been your type of reply, without acting on the
wheel data that was given to you.
It's a pity seeing it continue from you.
Frankly, Ion, you've been advised this too many times by people who've
demonstrated to you their understanding of lottery wheeling: its function
and purpose to the player, its construction, and its current
state-of-the-art. You need to _seriously_ reflect on your lack of
professionalism on the wheeling subject, as again evidenced in your reply
above.
- - - - - - - - -
Oh well... moving on with you, one more time.
You're aware of course that your '3 of 5' 307-line wheel covers almost 99
percent of the possible 3-number matches in a 5/36 game. You dumped the
lines into the newsgroup and did not state any goal for your lines.
Presumably you had one and merely failed to mention it.
That leaves you aware, of course, that you still have 4,768 holes, e.g.
there are 4,768 combinations which the game can draw and which do not
produce a win for the player of your wheel.
... Now try to _not_ lose focus here, and do not jump at the two
points above. Consider what else resides in your wheel.
Your wheel has a disparity of at least 'nine-to-one' (9:1) in coverage of
the '3of5' matches. Instead of correcting any of your 4,768 holes you have
left your wheel severely unbalanced in its other matches.
In other words: You have gross redundancies in some coverage. You have
uncovered areas (holes). You could have worked on reducing the redundancies
and plugging the holes. It's called "optimizing" the wheel, to give the
player balanced coverage at the lowest possible cost. Your wheel shows that
you've missed that point, or have been unsuccessful at it.
Example:
1 3 9 25 29 (and others) has 1 3-number match.
1 3 9 26 35 (and others) has 9 3-number matches.
This is one example of your wheel's disparity. There are thousands of
other examples.
Another example:
1 3 9 12 20 has 5 3-number matches.
The next combination:
1 3 9 12 21 has 0 (zero) 3-number matches. It is a hole.
Ion, do your best to be objective about your wheel. Use the second example
above. As follows:
... Presumably you know the lottery game is as likely to draw the number
"20" as it is to draw the number "21".
... All other things being equal: If the game draws "20", your wheel
gives 5 matches. If the game draws "21", your wheel gives 0 matches.
... You've taken two combinations -- both of which are equally likely
to be drawn, and which are in fact are back-to-back neighbors in
lexicographical order. You've allowed one of them to have grossly redundant
matching of the prize. You've allowed the other to have absolutely no
matching, whatsoever.
All you can say for your "wheel" is that it will give an average of 3.84
3-number wins in steady play, over an extended range of playing in a 5/36
game. As the wheel takes all 36 numbers, the player knows he will have all
5 winning numbers -- scattered throughout the wheel. His win may range from
0 (nothing) to 9 3-number wins. That's hardly the description of quality
in a wheel design.
Let's summarize your work. You've generated 307 lines that produce an
average of 3.84 3-number wins, in steady play over an extended range of
drawings in a 5/36 game. You're aware (hopefully) that _any other_ 307
lines will give that same average of 3.84 wins also. You're aware
(hopefully) that quality in wheeling consists of consistent coverage of the
desired prize, i.e. as evenly as possible without holes. Finally, you're
aware (hopefully) of that consistency in wheeling being the only actual,
measurable, tangible financial benefit over random playing, to the player.
If you're not aware of those things, you've failed to absorb the data
examples given to you, for which you've replied only with juvenile
name-calling.
If you are aware of those things, then you're also aware that your 307-line
'3of5' wheel grossly fails to provide that required consistency.
Rade Belic's site lists a 36,5,3,5 bound in 176 lines. That's your target.
Try to do it without holes and with minimal redundancies.
- - - - - - - -
I suppose anybody can put two combinations together and call them a wheel.
Just as you can put two pieces of bread together and call them a sandwich.
The question, Ion, is about the quality of the finished product.
Hopefully you'll see that point someday. When you do, hopefully you will be
able to join into the design of useful covers, that are of value to lottery
players, at a proper level of professionalism.
Joe Roberts
CDEX
gARY
wheels)......
> "Ion Saliu" wrote
> > Sorry! I posted an older '3 of 5' wheeled set, 313 lines. After one
> > more step, the set did come down to 307 combinations.
>
> But this one has 4'768 combinations of 3if5, missing Ion!!!
>
> What was the deciding factor to stop the wheel at 307blocks as it clearly
> was not 100% of the said covering??
What is "one more step"? Where was you at 313?
And when you say "3 of 5 wheeled set" do you not simply mean 'this wheel
holds some numbers'?
There are peoples that come to rgl with genuine problems that don't need to
see this crap of yours Ion.
My time would be better spent helping them RATHER than trying to correct
your mistakes WHICH you just cant see!!
My case is not about making you see Ion, it's about protecting others from
your wonder-land state of mind.
Suffins wrong Ion,
gARY
Ion Saliu
positional medians. A ‘strategy' is required to take advantage of the
optimization; i.e. play the set at certain points in the game to
increase the winning while diminishing the cost.
Nonetheless, I checked the 307-line set against ALL the draws in FL
5/36 game. The set registered 2,508 ‘3 of 5' hits. That's an average
of 3.7 hits per draw. Not one hit, but 3.7 ‘3 of 5' wins per draw.
There is a low probability (1% or so) that the set will register zero
hits in a particular drawing. The probability is equal that the set
will register 7-8 hits in a particular drawing. In most cases,
however, the set will register 3 or 4 hits in a particular drawing.
The chance is only 50% that playing this set 68 draws will lead to 0
‘3 of 5' hits in one situation! By then, though, the player would have
recorded around 250 ‘3 of 5' hits!
•• Now, there is the case of what they call the ‘maniacal wheelist'
(aka ‘wheel maniac'). He only plays the lottery once. He only uses a
set of numbers once. He wants to make sure he pays $310 with the 100%
guarantee to win $10! He never plays the lottery again, after that $10
win. He proved to the world of shadows that his wheel guaranteed a
prize…100%!
Files: POS536.35 (307) against > FL-536.TXT (672)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Line Combinations 5 4 3 2
no. Checked Hits Hits Hits Hits
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
113 1 7 15 22 30 in draw # 500
307 7 17 19 21 31 in draw # 672
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Hits: 1 66 2508
24607
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I generated another set, using OddsWheel.exe. The sets are equal to
the ‘exactly' odds of winning a particular prize. The cost is vastly
improved, since far fewer combinations are played. Nevertheless, the
set hit higher prizes as well. The maniacal wheelist would be scared
to death to play such a set: Perhaps it won't hit the first and only
time he plays the lottery!
The 82-line set registered 687 ‘3 of 5' hits in 672 draws. Therefore,
the set hit at least one ‘3 of 5' win, on average. But there is more.
How about 12 ‘4 of 5' wins? How about two jackpot wins?
You can find the set at the end of this post.
Best of luck!
Ion Saliu
Files: WHEEL36.35 (82) against > FL-536.TXT (672)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Line Combinations 5 4 3 2
no. Checked Hits Hits Hits Hits
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11 1 16 17 24 29 in draw # 316
81 20 24 26 27 36 in draw # 19
82 26 28 29 31 34 in draw # 661
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Hits: 2 12 687 6416
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost: 672 x 82 = 55,104
2 jackpots: 75,000 to 150,000
--------‘3 of 5' 36-number set according to the odds: 82 combinations,
starting at lexicographical index #1 (unfiltered)
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 15 28 33
1 3 12 19 29
1 4 11 17 30
1 5 11 29 35
1 6 14 16 34
1 7 19 25 35
1 9 12 13 26
1 10 24 30 34
1 13 14 19 30
1 16 17 24 29
1 22 24 30 35
2 3 12 30 32
2 4 11 26 28
2 5 12 17 33
2 6 14 24 34
2 7 20 26 29
2 9 12 19 33
2 10 27 28 35
2 13 14 30 33
2 16 18 22 25
2 22 27 28 36
3 4 15 22 34
3 5 16 20 28
3 6 20 21 23
3 8 9 28 31
3 9 16 22 34
3 11 15 18 36
3 13 20 24 34
3 17 18 19 31
3 27 28 34 36
4 5 30 32 34
4 7 9 18 22
4 8 14 17 29
4 10 11 12 19
4 11 24 29 34
4 14 18 21 29
4 18 21 23 36
5 6 9 23 36
5 7 13 14 31
5 8 20 24 29
5 10 15 17 29
5 12 16 27 30
5 15 16 28 31
5 19 26 32 34
6 7 15 17 25
6 8 26 30 33
6 10 17 27 28
6 12 19 32 35
6 15 20 21 23
6 20 25 28 36
7 8 20 23 35
7 10 15 17 23
7 12 16 26 33
7 15 16 27 33
7 19 26 31 32
8 9 19 21 32
8 11 17 24 32
8 13 25 30 32
8 17 21 25 33
9 10 11 27 33
9 12 13 14 25
9 14 20 21 27
9 18 24 25 32
10 11 17 30 31
10 13 26 31 32
10 17 21 32 34
11 12 14 17 34
11 14 22 31 36
11 19 20 22 28
12 13 26 27 32
12 17 21 28 30
13 14 16 21 26
13 17 29 32 33
14 15 20 27 32
14 20 27 28 33
15 18 25 26 36
16 18 22 27 31
17 19 23 29 32
18 22 27 30 35
20 24 26 27 36
26 28 29 31 34
------end of set
What a wheel maniac needs is a clinic, not a forum. Posting will only
make him a post, or a toast, or a roast.
Or a ghost!
© 2003, http://www.saliu.com
CDEX
Trying one more time with you.
Ion Saliu wrote:
> .. Now, there is the case of what they call
> the 'maniacal wheelist' (aka 'wheel maniac').
> He only plays the lottery once. He only uses a
> set of numbers once. He wants to make sure he
> pays $310 with the 100% guarantee to win $10!
> He never plays the lottery again, after that
> $10 win. He proved to the world of shadows
> that his wheel guaranteed a prize.100%!
>
OK. Sighing and shrugging, let's dig into your latest droppings. Bit by
bit.
> .. Now, there is the case of what they call
> the 'maniacal wheelist' (aka 'wheel maniac').
Who are "they", in your mind?
... Searching the Web in Google, here is the search result:
"Your search - "maniacal wheelist" - did not match any documents."
... Searching Google Newsgroups, here is the search result:
"Your search - "maniacal wheelist" - did not match any documents."
Ion, your definition exists nowhere except in your own mind.
Not in any Web page in Google. Not in any Newsgroup post in Google, prior
to you dropping it there.
Your next part:
> He only plays the lottery once. He only uses a
> set of numbers once. He wants to make sure he
> pays $310 with the 100% guarantee to win $10!
> He never plays the lottery again, after that
> $10 win. He proved to the world of shadows
> that his wheel guaranteed a prize.100%!
Have you ever met any person who plays a lottery game in that way? Ever?
It isn't rare to see misstatements. It's a bit more rare to see
misstatements containing two exclamation points (!) for emphasis.
- - - - - - - - - -
You invent classes of people in your mind. Then you pretend they exist,
somewhere outside of your invention. Then you criticize them.
You'll never gain credibility for your wheeling endeavors until you can:
... 1. State your wheeling goal.
... 2. Show your wheel.
... 3. Provide non-trivial test data on that wheel,
...... including non-trivial comparison against randomized play.
... 4. Always (that's _always_, Ion) give objective answers to people
when they ask you questions about your wheel.
... 5. Stop mixing your wheeling material with cheap, juvenile insults
against other people who work with lottery wheels.
You can't scrape by, by doing '1 of 5', '2 of 5', '3 of 5', or '4 of 5'
in the above list. You have to match all 5 numbers.
It's fundamental, if you want to attain some measure of credibility.
That shouldn't be too much to expect, when it's asked of a rational person.
Especially of the person can be consistently rational. One hopes you'll see
it someday.
- - - - - - - - - -
Set the wheeling topic aside for a brief moment. Probe your consciousness
in general. Then come back to the wheeling topic, and apply that probing to
your wheel posts.
There's a difference between an honest passion for wheeling, and a focus
on hubris. See if you can figure out that difference, and you'll come a
long way into wheeling.
There's a difference also between Socrates and Procrustes, as you know.
That's other than the obvious difference in their mortality. One is open
and enquiring, you might today say even data-driven. The other is the
ultimate placer of people into his own invented categories. Consider that
difference when you post about wheeling.
Please give a try.
Joe Roberts
CDEX
P.S. This thread now has over 60 messages. Therefore it tends to get
truncated in some newsreader software, making it difficult to read for some
users. If you are going to post more wheels, you might consider beginning
a new thread.
gARY
> . The 36-number '3 of 5' randomized-wheeled set was optimized based on
> positional medians. A 'strategy' is required to take advantage of the
> optimization; i.e. play the set at certain points in the game to
> increase the winning while diminishing the cost.
This just about *tops it* 4me........
Quote Ion....
"play the set at certain points in the game"
Prey, do tell Ion?
Na let me guess....we play the lines (inflated wheel) when 'any' 6numbers
held within the wheel get drawn....that must be it....surly?
I'm a bloody idiot.....why didn't I think of that!
Nearly finished Ion.............
> ------end of set
>
> What a wheel maniac needs is a clinic, not a forum. Posting will only
> make him a post, or a toast, or a roast.
> Or a ghost!
I get the feeling you was a struggling on "ghost", as it goes any1 of the
above will do 4me as I feel like shit.
I'm not dead yet, ;)
gARY
CDEX
> I get the feeling you was a struggling on "ghost", as it goes
> any1 of the above will do 4me as I feel like shit.
>
> I'm not dead yet, ;)
Don't sweat it, gARY. The bumps and bruises will heal and you'll know you
had the courage to stand. As for the other 9 guys, as they go through life
it will dawn on them that they were cowards. Then their hurt will smart a
lot worse than anything you've got right now, and it will stick with them a
long time. Yours will get better every day, theirs will get worse.
Hang tough.
Joe
CDEX
Would you explain the contradictions in your wheel?
Ion Saliu wrote:
> . The 36-number '3 of 5' randomized-wheeled set was optimized based on
> positional medians. A 'strategy' is required to take advantage of the
> optimization; i.e. play the set at certain points in the game to
> increase the winning while diminishing the cost.
>
OK. Stop right there for a moment, before you go on.
In the previous messages to you in this thread, you were shown the defects
in your wheel. It has gross redundancies of at least 9-to-1 in matches,
and holes (sets of numbers that are entirely unmatched).
Your only reply is your one above: You need some kind of 'strategy' to
'take advantage' of its 'optimization' -- i.e. to play the wheel only at
certain points in the game.
As usual, you walk away right there. Nothing follows about any such
'strategy'. It's a catch-phrase, a figment. You don't describe any
'strategy', you don't present one. You don't even demonstrate that you have
tested one, with your wheel.
It's a way for you to get off the hook from explaining the defects shown to
you about your wheel, including specific combinations in your wheel. You
can't explain it, so you sidestep it by throwing out a 'strategy' which
you've kept hidden so far.
It was also pointed out to you that Rade Belic's site lists a 35,5,3,5 bound
in 176 lines. Far less than your so-called 'optimized' 307 lines, with
their redundancies, holes, and extra cost to the player.
But it gets even better, Ion. Your next line is:
> Nonetheless, I checked the 307-line set against
> ALL the draws in FL 5/36 game.
>
OK. You have a 'strategy' for playing "at certain points in the game", but
you ignored it. You ran your wheel for all the draws in the Florida 5/36
game. You did exactly what you'd advise a player _not_ to do -- i.e.,
contrary to your 'strategy'.
That's your method of "checking" the wheel. That's your method of
presenting it to players in this newsgroup.
It's tedious as hell, but going on with you, Ion:
> The set registered 2,508 '3 of 5' hits. That's an average
> of 3.7 hits per draw. Not one hit, but 3.7 '3 of 5' wins per draw.
Yes, Ion, and it was demonstrated to you that _any_ set of 307 lines will
average 3.84 '3of5' hits per draw in extended play in _any_ 5/36 game.
Were you trying to make a point? Other than that your wheel does no better
than random lines in extended play?
> There is a low probability (1% or so) that the set will register zero
> hits in a particular drawing. The probability is equal that the set
> will register 7-8 hits in a particular drawing. In most cases,
> however, the set will register 3 or 4 hits in a particular drawing.
So will a randomized set of 307 lines.
> The chance is only 50% that playing this set 68 draws will lead to 0
> '3 of 5' hits in one situation! By then, though, the player would have
> recorded around 250 '3 of 5' hits!
Mmmm, hmmm. OK, Ion. See below.
The Florida game pays an average of $9.00 for a '3of5' hit.
In 68 draws, with 250 hits:
... Your player would have won (250 * $9.00) = $2,250.
... Your player would have spent (307 * 68) = $20,876.
... Your player would have lost ($20,876 - $2,250) = $18,626.
What exactly is your point?
- - - - - -
Your logic is circular, Ion.
You present a wheel. You present _no_ goals for the wheel.
You test the wheel in all draws of one 5/36 game. Your wheel is
analyzed by others and its defects are reported to you. You reply that a
'strategy' is needed to play the wheel only in certain draws of a game, but
you supply no strategy. You finish with more data from all draws of one
5/36 game. Round and round.
Joe Roberts
CDEX
CDEX
Correction of a typo, and more information about your 307-line wheel
Correction of typo:
The correction is even worse news for your wheel.
I said that Rade Belic's site lists a "35,5,3,5" bound in 176 lines. The
bound is "36,5,3,5" in 176 lines. That's far less than your so-called
'optimized' 36,5,3,5 wheel in 307 lines, with your wheel's redundancies,
holes and gaps in its coverage, and extra cost to the player.
Still waiting for your explanation of your (quote) "strategy" for the wheel,
Ion. You know, the one you mentioned here on 05/21/2003:
"A 'strategy' is required to take advantage
of the optimization; i.e. play the set at
certain points in the game to increase the
winning while diminishing the cost."
You posted a bloated wheel costing the player $307 to play. You posted no
goal for the wheel. Your wheel was tested by readers. It was found to have
gross redundancies (of 9:1) in matching some 3-number sets, and no coverage
at all (holes) for other 3-number sets.
The player is left with this from you:
... 1. a wheel costing $307 to play;
... 2. your data from the draws of one Florida game;
... 3. more data from the same game showing heavy losses (below);
... 4. your cryptic statement that some kind of 'strategy' is required,
... 5. and nothing else.
- - - - - - - -
For the second time, Ion, go over the numbers:
Ion Saliu wrote:
> The set registered 2,508 '3 of 5' hits.
> That's an average of 3.7 hits per draw.
> Not one hit, but 3.7 '3 of 5' wins per draw.
It was demonstrated to you that _any_ set of 307 lines will average 3.84
'3of5' hits per draw in extended play in _any_ 5/36 game.
Were you trying to make a point? Other than that your wheel does no better
than random lines in extended play?
You wrote:
> There is a low probability (1% or so) that
> the set will register zero hits in a particular
> drawing. The probability is equal that the set
> will register 7-8 hits in a particular drawing.
> In most cases, however, the set will register
> 3 or 4 hits in a particular drawing.
So will a random set of 307 lines.
You wrote:
> The chance is only 50% that playing this set
> 68 draws will lead to 0 '3 of 5' hits in one
> situation! By then, though, the player would
> have recorded around 250 '3 of 5' hits!
OK. Ion, see below.
The Florida game pays an average of $9.00 for a '3of5' hit.
In 68 draws, with 250 hits:
... Your player would have won (250 * $9.00) = $2,250.
... Your player would have spent (307 * 68) = $20,876.
... Your player would have lost ($20,876 - $2,250) = $18,626.
What exactly is your point?
Now here is the additional information for you.
... The player's chance of hitting a '3of5' win is: 1 in 81.
Playing random lines, as in Quick Picks, he averages 1 win for every 81
tickets he buys.
That 1 win pays him an average of $9.00. Therefore in random play he wins
an average of $9.00 for every $81.00 he spends.
Therefore in random play he wins an average of $1.00 for every $9.00 he
spends (i.e., $9.00 for every $81.00)
Using your figures, Ion:
... Both players spend (307 * 68) = $20,876.
... Your 307-line wheel player wins (250 * $9.00) = $2,250.
... The random line player wins ($20,876 / 9) = $2,319.
Fact, Ion: In a group of people playing 307 plain random lines, and you
playing your bloated 307-line wheel:
... Those people averaged slightly more wins than you.
If you have a 'strategy' for your wheel you darned sure ought to show it.
Obviously your 'strategy' needs to show how the player is supposed to know
when to use it, and when not to use it -- in advance of the next drawing.
Otherwise your wheel is a dud.
Joe Roberts
CDEX
gARY
Thanks Joe,
Wee bit of compensation due I feel, pay back time........
I just won lotto! :)
Good luck,
gARY
Ion Saliu
message news:rd4rbv4mshdt7ioht...@4ax.com
>
> Too lateral for me. Learn to communicate ya prat.
>
> What the F--k are you rambling on about?
>
Weltbastard:
Sprache do Englisch?
Auf wiederseen, Weltbastard!
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
gARY
> > Too lateral for me. Learn to communicate ya prat.
> >
> > What the F--k are you rambling on about?
> >
>
> Weltbastard:
>
> Sprache do Englisch?
I do.
B careful u might use up 2days mail quota,
gARY
hifi
New combs.
isa...@onebox.com (Ion Saliu) wrote in message news:<f2567897.03051...@posting.google.com>...
CDEX
Ion:
Ion Saliu wrote:
> Have I trespassed a cult territory? As we all know,
> cult followers behave quite closely to insanity,
> in general. Is there anything we can do about it,
> other than turning away? Perhaps, keep posting?
- - -
> Have I trespassed a cult territory?
Yes, the integrity vacuum between your temporal lobes. One of which compels
you to ignore questions addressed directly to you exposing your
misstatements of the wheeling's function and purpose for lottery players,
and the defects in your sloppy wheel designs. The other of which compels
you to pitifully return for attention from persons whom you simply attack
for questioning you.
> As we all know,
> cult followers behave quite closely to insanity,
> in general.
Damn straight. There's also a very thin line between doing shoddy technical
work and being irrational in initiating juvenile name-calling, misquoting,
et al against the people who feed you the very data you ignored: real
games, numbers, combinations, draws, and prizes.
Hardly to mention the fact that you began this 'wheel' thread, in your first
message, with your unprovoked personal attack and absolute lies, contrary to
Google Groups archives. And you've dragged it out to 70 messages by
ignoring questions given you about your wheels.
> Is there anything we can do about it,
> other than turning away? Perhaps, keep posting?
Yes. Answer the questions you got more than three weeks ago. Why do you
state (shown to be a falsehood) that 'wheeling accelerates the player's
losses', and then proceed to post your latest wheels which cost the player
three times as much to play as the other wheels available to him?
And -- when you're shown in real game data that your latest wheel design
works no better for the player than the same amount of plain Quick Picks,
why do you become silent?
Flip. Here's a wheel with 'more than 3 times as many 5-winners as any
other set of lines, worldwide.'
Flop. Wheels 'merely accelerate the player's losses.''
Flip. When shown that's an absolute falsehood, don't respond. Go silent.
Flop. Here are your latest wheels, with your link for players to download
them.
Flip. Now (four days later), here's your advice against playing those
wheels.
Flop. Here's a new wheel costing $307 to play, with 3.7 '3if5' wins in one
game.
Flip. When shown that the plain 'Quick Pick' expectation for 307 lines is
3.84 wins, go silent.
Flop. After six days of silence, post a new message containing a copy and
paste of the same lines, without any new data of any kind.
Question yourselves. Take a vote.
Joe Roberts
CDEX
Ion Saliu
Only Randomness is Almighty. Randomness is great.
Lotto-5 Balanced Wheels
SYS-9 35 = 9-number '3 of 5' wheel, 3 combinations
SYS-10 35 = 10-number '3 of 5' wheel, 4 combinations
SYS-11 35 = 11-number '3 of 5' wheel, 6 combinations
SYS-12 35 = 12-number '3 of 5' wheel, 10 combinations
SYS-13 35 = 13-number '3 of 5' wheel, 12 combinations
SYS-14 35 = 14-number '3 of 5' wheel, 13 combinations
SYS-15 35 = 15-number '3 of 5' wheel, 21 combinations
SYS-16 35 = 16-number '3 of 5' wheel, 25 combinations
SYS-17 35 = 17-number '3 of 5' wheel, 47 combinations
SYS-18 35 = 18-number '3 of 5' wheel, 38 combinations
SYS-19 35 = 19-number '3 of 5' wheel, 59 combinations
SYS-20 35 = 20-number '3 of 5' wheel, 57 combinations
SYS-24 35 = 24-number '3 of 5' wheel, 109 combinations
Lotto-6 Balanced Wheels
SYS-9 46 = 9-number '4 of 6' wheel, 3 combinations *
SYS9 46 = 9-number '4 of 6' wheel, 3 combinations
SYS-10 46 = 10-number '4 of 6' wheel, 3 combinations
SYS10 46 = 10-number '4 of 6' wheel, 3 combinations *
SYS-11 46 = 11-number '4 of 6' wheel, 5 combinations
SYS11 46 = 11-number '4 of 6' wheel, 5 combinations
SYS-12 46 = 12-number '4 of 6' wheel, 10 combinations
SYS12 46 = 12-number '4 of 6' wheel, 6 combinations *
SYS-13 46 = 13-number '4 of 6' wheel, 14 combinations
SYS-14 46 = 14-number '4 of 6' wheel, 22 combinations
SYS-15 46 = 15-number '4 of 6' wheel, 29 combinations
SYS-16 46 = 16-number '4 of 6' wheel, 41 combinations
SYS-18 36 = 18-number '3 of 6' wheel, 20 combinations
SYS-18 46 = 18-number '4 of 6' wheel, 74 combinations
SYS18 46 = 18-number '4 of 6' wheel, 51 combinations
SYS-20 36 = 20-number '3 of 6' wheel, 30 combinations
SYS-20 46 = 20-number '4 of 6' wheel, 121 combinations
SYS-20 F1 = 20-number , 1 FAVORITE, '4 of 6' wheel, 59
combinations
SYS-20 F2 = 20-number , 2 FAVORITES, '4 of 6' wheel, 20
combinations
SYS-24 36 = 24-number '3 of 6' wheel, 74 combinations
SYS-24 46 = 24-number '4 of 6' wheel, 276 combinations
SYS-28 46 = 28-number '4 of 6' wheel, 570 combinations
SYS-30 36 = 30-number '3 of 6' wheel, 115 combinations
SYS-30 46 = 30-number '4 of 6' wheel, 974 combinations
SYS-30 F1 = 30-number, 1 FAVORITE, '4 of 6' wheel, 241
combinations
SYS-30 F2 = 30-number, 2 FAVORITES, '4 of 6' wheel, 48
combinations
WHEEL42 36 = 42-number '3 of 6' wheel, 252 combinations
WHEEL45 36 = 45-number '3 of 6' wheel, 304 combinations
WHEEL49 36 = 49-number '3 of 6' wheel, 416 combinations
WHEEL51 36 = 51-number '3 of 6' wheel, 477 combinations
WHEEL54 36 = 54-number '3 of 6' wheel, 575 combinations
WHEEL69 36 = 69-number '3 of 6' wheel, 1298 combinations
CDEX49 36 = 49-number 'random generation', 416 combinations
GENER 49 = 49-number 'random generation', 416 combinations,
using
the random number generator at www.saliu.com/
Both random combination sets beat any wheel of equal
parameters
as far as higher prizes are concerned.
* = Not a balanced wheel
• Use SHUFFLE.EXE or FORMULA.EXE to shuffle (randomly arrange) your
picks.
Repeat the randomizing procedure several times.
•• Use FillWheel.exe to 'wheel' your picks; i.e. replace the
theoretical numbers
in the SYS/WHEEL files by your picks.
The three programs are free from the FTP Downloads site:
www.saliu.com/infodown.html
These systems may not be reproduced or distributed in any way, form,
or shape. They are for the individual use of the person who downloaded
these systems (wheels).
(C) Copyright 2003 Ion Saliu
Gerry
> . Use SHUFFLE.EXE or FORMULA.EXE to shuffle (randomly arrange) your
> picks.
> Repeat the randomizing procedure several times.
Shuffle is a good choice of words. Shuffle this, shuffle that, if in doubt
do a re-shuffle just to make sure nobody ever knows what the hell
you're talking about.
LotWIN can kick LotWON"s ass all over this newsgroup. Already done
it once ;-) Remember?
Prattle on talking about that toyware. Does Ion rhyme with peon ??
Gerry
gARY
> . The new shape of the balanced wheels: They are also randomized.
> Only Randomness is Almighty. Randomness is great.
>
> Lotto-5 Balanced Wheels
>
> SYS-9 35 = 9-number '3 of 5' wheel, 3 combinations
> SYS-10 35 = 10-number '3 of 5' wheel, 4 combinations
You must be learning Ion as you have knocked 2combinations off your last
attempt, how did you manage that great feat?
> >SYS-10 35 = 10-number '3 of 5' wheel, 6 combinations
For "Lotto-5 Balanced Wheels" in the above case, still....
2blocks are your target.....
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10
One day, maybe,
gARY
BTW. There is not much fear of anybody using these, let alone reproducing
them......
CDEX
OK, Ion.
Barely one month ago (04/27/2003) you posted your first version of these
wheels.
After four days of showing your wheels in the newsgroup, you wrote
(05/02/2003) (quote):
... "I advise now against playing them."
You've also written your opinion that 'wheeling merely accelerates the loss'
of the player's money.
That's been shown to you as a falsehood. It was shown to you with internal
3-, 4-, and 5-number matching data. Shown to you again with actual lottery
game prize data. You haven't replied to those any of those data reports,
even when they were addressed directly to you. You haven't even
acknowledged them.
What's worse, you haven't retracted your falsehood. It still stands in the
archives.
Now here you are, back again with your latest version of these wheels.
What's in your head, Ion? Do you advise the player:
... Not to play your first wheels, but it's OK to play your latest
wheels?
... The first wheels accelerate the player's loss, but these new ones do
not?
More coming, Ion.
- - -
One reader gave you an example about your first set of wheels (04/27/2003),
with a question to you.
He specifically showed you your "SYS-10" wheel, '3of5' in 6 combinations.
He pointed out to you that the '3of5' coverage already exists, in a 5/10
wheel that's in the public domain. He showed you that '3of5' cover exists
in just 2 combinations. And he showed you those 2 combinations.
See, Ion? You saw that your wheel costs 3 times as much to play as the
current (non-Saliu) wheel design.
It was shown to you, specifically, while you're still maintaining that
'wheeling merely accelerates the losses' of the player's money.
So you were asked this question:
... If you think that 'wheeling merely accelerates the loss' of the
player's money -- why do you supply the player with a wheel that costs
three times as much to play as the current (non-Saliu) wheel?
You've been asked that question half-a-dozen more times. Repeatedly, over
the last three weeks.
You've never answered the question.
Now here is your latest version. Now you've reduced your "SYS-10" wheel
down in size, from 6 combinations to 4 combinations.
Instead of costing the player three times as much to play, now it costs him
twice as much to play.
- - -
Again:
What's in your head, Ion? Do you advise:
... Not to play your first wheels, but it's OK to play these new wheels?
... The first wheels accelerate the player's losses, but these new
wheels do not accelerate the player's losses?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
You see, Ion:
Anybody could freely post a set of wheels, and have them accepted --
provided only he can understand these 6 points. They ought to be obvious to
you.
1. He doesn't keep zigzagging back and forth between erratic,
contradictory statements.
2. He doesn't perform juvenile, personal name-twisting of persons in
this newsgroup.
3. He doesn't put people into imagined made-up categories, which are
totally of his own mental invention -- and then insult those people for
being there in those imaginary places. He doesn't misquote them, and he
doesn't lie about them.
4. He doesn't attack people, such as in the following examples. (All
of these quotes are yours, Ion, and they are accurate.):
..... Calling this newsgroup's coordinator, who is a man that is
respected for his fairness as well as for his knowledge: the "pretender"
who writes "stupidities", "stinking sucker", "thief" -- who had "tried to
delete the files from my download site".
..... Calling the person who asked you to explain your 'SYS-10'
wheel: "the little mouse
that licks empty glasses and bottles in pubs".
..... Calling three people who replied about your 416-line wheel:
"You think I'd save all those suckers from my red-hot words and biting
systems?... I am away for awhile, and some start sucking again! Study and
work, will U, please? Man, I don't comprehend why people love to suck! "No
pain, no gain! (...) et caetera, don't let them spread their wings! Don't
mess up with my thread! Start another one, if U belong to the sucker cast.
... The lottery commissions are visiting my website... (they'll probably
change formats ASAP)"
..... Ignoring the comprehensive, helpful wheel data given to you
by the author of one of the world's finest wheel optimization software, but
replying to him: "I don't know what 'cover' means to you... Are you sure
you understand what lotto wheeling is, or you have something else in mind
when you say 'wheel'?... Obviously, you don't have dedicated software to
check 'lotto wheels'.
..... There are countless similar examples, Ion. You probably
don't want them. You've got to get the point.
5. He doesn't shift, shuffle, and side-step away from questions.
Examples:
..... In the RGL thread "Open Wheel Question" you posted your
51-combination '4if6' wheel. You were asked by an RGL reader to explain
what, if anything, you're providing that's any bit better than the already
existing Dimitrov wheel in 42 combinations. You responded with an
off-topic, general platitude about 'dynamic' and 'static' wheeling. You
refused to address the question that was asked of you, and you called the
case "closed". Communication with you was nil.
..... In the same thread, you posted your calculation about finding
minimum combinations in a wheel. You calculated that, for complete '4if6'
coverage, the wheel would need 19 lines. Your calculation covered only a
tiny part of the wheel. An RGL reader pointed out to you that you were
providing just 69% coverage in your wheel -- no more. You were asked how
you arrived at your figures. You replied that it was "theoretical". Then
it was pointed out to you that, even "theoretically", your figures are
wrong. You were asked again to explain your figures. Your reply was that
the answer "wouldn't be free. Actually, it would set you back quite a bit".
Communication with you was nil.
6. And finally: When sufficient data are given to him to show the
performance of his wheeling systems -- he acknowledges that data and
replies civilly to it. He remembers that data. And he moves onward from
that point, the next time he goes to design a new wheel or other tool for
the lottery player. He doesn't go silent for months and then return with
more of the same kinds of wheels and insults.
Your score:
You need to score '6 of 6', Ion. So far it's 0 (zero). So far you
fail every one of the criteria above.
Hope springs eternal. It does so with your next message that you post in
this newsgroup.
Joe Roberts
CDEX
CDEX
Unless you have something new to add, I would suggest you terminate this
thread. The only new posts are the ones you initiate and the resulting
replies to your posts.
This thread now has in excess of 70 posts. The indents in Outlook Express
are forciing blank Subject lines in the thread's listing. They are getting
unreadable. The only way to view them is to shrink some other field. In
addition, some of the earlier posts are no longer on the local ATTBI server.
The newsgroup has to be initialized and re-downloaded to view them. A
thread with over 70 messages, most of them chasing around for answers that
never come, is not the best "newsgroup" service to readers.
If you want to pursue wheeling, I suggest you begin a brand new thread.
That will also be a good way to make a fresh start.
Joe Roberts
CDEX
Ion Saliu
some wheels non-randomized. They are sequential, balanced wheels. The
user has therefore more choices in testing. You need to download and
decompress the new packages to different folders, if you want to
preserve the original, sequential (non-randomized) wheels. If you
overwrote the original sets, ask your friends for help!
Only Randomness is Almighty. Randomness is great.
Lotto-5 Balanced Wheels
SYS-9 35 = 9-number '3 of 5' wheel, 3 combinations
SYS-10 35 = 10-number '3 of 5' wheel, 4 combinations
SYS-11 35 = 11-number '3 of 5' wheel, 6 combinations
SYS-12 35 = 12-number '3 of 5' wheel, 10 combinations
SYS-13 35 = 13-number '3 of 5' wheel, 12 combinations
SYS-14 35 = 14-number '3 of 5' wheel, 13 combinations
SYS-15 35 = 15-number '3 of 5' wheel, 21 combinations
SYS-16 35 = 16-number '3 of 5' wheel, 25 combinations
SYS-17 35 = 17-number '3 of 5' wheel, 47 combinations #
SYS-18 35 = 18-number '3 of 5' wheel, 38 combinations
SYS-19 35 = 19-number '3 of 5' wheel, 59 combinations #
SYS-20 35 = 20-number '3 of 5' wheel, 57 combinations
SYS-24 35 = 24-number '3 of 5' wheel, 109 combinations
Lotto-6 Balanced Wheels
SYS-9 46 = 9-number '4 of 6' wheel, 3 combinations *
SYS9 46 = 9-number '4 of 6' wheel, 3 combinations
SYS-10 46 = 10-number '4 of 6' wheel, 3 combinations
SYS10 46 = 10-number '4 of 6' wheel, 3 combinations *
SYS-11 46 = 11-number '4 of 6' wheel, 5 combinations
SYS11 46 = 11-number '4 of 6' wheel, 5 combinations
SYS-12 46 = 12-number '4 of 6' wheel, 10 combinations
SYS12 46 = 12-number '4 of 6' wheel, 6 combinations *
SYS-13 46 = 13-number '4 of 6' wheel, 14 combinations
SYS-14 46 = 14-number '4 of 6' wheel, 22 combinations
SYS-15 46 = 15-number '4 of 6' wheel, 29 combinations
SYS-16 46 = 16-number '4 of 6' wheel, 41 combinations
SYS-18 36 = 18-number '3 of 6' wheel, 20 combinations
SYS-18 46 = 18-number '4 of 6' wheel, 74 combinations
SYS18 46 = 18-number '4 of 6' wheel, 51 combinations
SYS-20 36 = 20-number '3 of 6' wheel, 30 combinations #
SYS-20 46 = 20-number '4 of 6' wheel, 121 combinations
SYS-20 F1 = 20-number , 1 FAVORITE, '4 of 6' wheel, 59
Combinations #
SYS-20 F2 = 20-number , 2 FAVORITES, '4 of 6' wheel, 20
Combinations #
SYS-24 36 = 24-number '3 of 6' wheel, 74 combinations #
SYS-24 46 = 24-number '4 of 6' wheel, 276 combinations
SYS-28 46 = 28-number '4 of 6' wheel, 570 combinations #
SYS-30 36 = 30-number '3 of 6' wheel, 115 combinations #
SYS-30 46 = 30-number '4 of 6' wheel, 974 combinations #
SYS-30 F1 = 30-number, 1 FAVORITE, '4 of 6' wheel, 241
Combinations #
SYS-30 F2 = 30-number, 2 FAVORITES, '4 of 6' wheel, 48
Combinations #
WHEEL42 36 = 42-number '3 of 6' wheel, 252 combinations #
WHEEL45 36 = 45-number '3 of 6' wheel, 304 combinations #
WHEEL49 36 = 49-number '3 of 6' wheel, 416 combinations #
WHEEL51 36 = 51-number '3 of 6' wheel, 477 combinations #
WHEEL54 36 = 54-number '3 of 6' wheel, 575 combinations #
WHEEL69 36 = 69-number '3 of 6' wheel, 1298 combinations #
CDEX49 36 = 49-number 'random generation', 416 combinations * #
GENER 49 = 49-number 'random generation', 416 combinations,
Using the random number generator at
www.saliu.com/ *
Both random combination sets beat any wheel of equal
parameters
as far as higher prizes are concerned.
* = Not a balanced wheel
# = Not a randomized wheel
• Use SHUFFLE.EXE or FORMULA.EXE to shuffle (randomly arrange) your
picks. Repeat the randomizing procedure several times.
•• Use FillWheel.exe to 'wheel' your picks; i.e. replace the
theoretical numbers in the SYS/WHEEL files by your picks.
The three programs are free from the FTP Downloads site:
http://www.saliu.com/infodown.html
These systems may not be reproduced or distributed in any way, form,
or shape. They are for the individual use of the person who downloaded
these systems (wheels).
(C) Copyright 2003 Ion Saliu
Richard McTavish
CDEX
I don't see it as an option in OE 6.00.2800.1123 which is the latest
download from Microsoft.
Even when sorting on dates with the latest post at the top, they're still
heavily indented. Right now the 'Subject' field is indented so far to the
right, that it's blank on a dozen posts. I know they're in the thread,
because of the "+" and "-" (expand/compress) signs. However it might not be
so clear to a new OE user, and I suppose one goal is to try to help the new
user who comes into RGL. Maybe it's better in Forte or Netscape. I can get
more space in the listings by squeezing the other fields like the author and
date fields, but that pretty much defeats the purpose of following the
thread.
I suppose if a thread's adding useful content there's a reason to keep it
rolling. Not so sure this present one is doing that, though.
What newsreader software do you use?
Joe
EdH
>Richard,
>
>I don't see it as an option in OE 6.00.2800.1123 which is the latest
>download from Microsoft.
>
>Even when sorting on dates with the latest post at the top, they're still
>heavily indented. Right now the 'Subject' field is indented so far to the
>right, that it's blank on a dozen posts. I know they're in the thread,
>because of the "+" and "-" (expand/compress) signs. However it might not be
>so clear to a new OE user, and I suppose one goal is to try to help the new
>user who comes into RGL. Maybe it's better in Forte or Netscape.
I use Forte and no problem viewing although indenting stops at 6
messages away from the original one that started the thread.
EdH
Richard McTavish
I find it easier to read the posts as they come up(by order received), rather
than scrolling back & searching through various old threads.
CDEX
(Replying here to both you chaps to save some bandwidth.)
Many thanks for the inputs. I guess it's just a "feature" in Outlook
Express.
Scrolling down the RGL threads, there are big gaps here in this thread "Free
lotto-5 etc" and also in the thread "Trends and Facts". I counted 20
levels of indents in the latter one.
Thanks again,
Joe
hifi
>
> LotWIN can kick LotWON"s ass all over this newsgroup. Already done
> it once ;-) Remember?
>>
gERRY sIS bOOM bAH
you and your lotwin R fraud. you stole the name from Ion. lotwin is
big fraud. pay lots of money when Ion's software does it much better
for free !!!! much better for free !!!!
Tony posted how a crooked lotwin wheel did. you saw how much better
Ion's wheels did. one had a couple of jackpots !!!!
sIS bOOM bAH !!!! you post from prision ????
Ion Saliu
an
effort on my behalf. I still kickass like hell if need may be. Not a
reference to anyone in particular, but I have never EVER asked anybody
to kick ass via email on my behalf. I do not do it myself via email. I
always prefer the public grounds. And I never do it with the intention
to destroy. How fun would it be if there was nothing else to kick
around?
Just think of Lotwin32. It’s a blatant case of plagiarism. Think of a
company deciding to trademark as MicroSorg32. They would have been eaten
alive even in the 1980’s when Bill & Co. was a small dormitory venture.
I used LotWon as a business name starting 1986. I sold printed…wheels!
Yes, 16 pages of lotto-6 wheels (from 9 to 28 numbers). The first ads
were printed in a few tabloids. I sold a few hundred copies. Then my
software came along. I made my first freeware decision in the 1990’s. I
took all my unsold printed wheels to a gas station in Gettysburg (Get
it? Gas station? Wheels?). I asked the lottery attendant to offer them
for free to anybody who played the lottery at that agency. The agent
asked me, after a couple of weeks, if I had more of those papers.
Apparently, people liked the wheels. So did I at that time. I only
changed my mind after thorough data analysis. Humans should never be
ashamed of changing their minds. The Truth is above anybody. The Truth
is not part of our being. One is severely sick if the Truth makes him
suffer as if the Truth were part of his being.
I offered my software beginning 1988 under the same marketing name:
LotWon. The first ad was printed in the huge computer magazine named
“Computer Shopper”. I mean, it was huge! The magazine looks now like
suffering from terminal cancer: Just a few pages, with a few ads in
there. LotWon became a “Top 10 Shareware” program in 1990. It was listed
in 1991 as a “Top 10 Shareware” program in “PC Magazine”. “PC Magazine”
was the product of the same parent company as “Computer
Shopper”—Ziff-Davis. “PC Magazine” is the most influential publication
in the history of computing.
There was no lottery software at that time. Well, the other few attempts
were dealing with and only with hot/cold numbers. In fact, they were not
really statistical programs, but rude attempts to generate random
numbers. I received plenty of reports from lottery software users. In
exchange, I offered them my software as a gift. LotWon was the only
software using draws history to eliminate certain patterns based on
artificial intelligence rules. The revolutionary notions of eliminating
conditions, filters, pairs, range of analysis, remaining combinations to
play…etc., were introduced by LotWon. It was in the early 1990’s that
LotWon and its groundbreaking concepts attracted the attention of
scholars. It also made the Marquis Who’s Who directories profile me in
their publications. LotWon is also mentioned in the Marquis Who’s Who
directories.
LotWon is not trademarked. Nor are my technologies patented yet.
Nevertheless, my work is part of the library of the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office. Even if I did not file complaints, USPTO would never
issue patents or trademarks that would infringe with my intellectual
properties. So, a case like LotWin (or LotWin32 in an attempt to divert
lawlessness) is just a tiny worm on one’s path. Another such worm was an
imitation of my pick-3 software, I think it was called matrix! (No
relation to the movie, or who knows!). The tiny worms would be crushed
easily, but what would I gain? Sell the dirt from their cells?
Ion Saliu
http://www.saliu.com/
"hifi" <hifi5...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b53070b6.0306...@posting.google.com
--
Robert Perkis
yourself.
as iwin.com and iwon.com can both exist, I don't see any
problem with lotwin.com and lotwon.com getting along.
1986 eh my oldest gail howard disk is copyrighted 1985 just
thought you'd want to know as if anyone would give a rat's
ass for a copy of either. gail the bitch
CDEX
> ...
> 1986 eh my oldest gail howard disk is copyrighted 1985 just
> thought you'd want to know as if anyone would give a rat's
> ass for a copy of either.
Robert,
Do you recall when Floyd Oaks' "Amfilter" came out? Also if I recall
correctly, Gary Olander's "Let's Make a Wheel" was around in the mid-80s, as
was Bill Dowling's "FEO (For Experts Only)", his predecessor to "Advanced
Lotto Tools" There was also an earlier EOL "Tracker and Wheeler". All of
those were back in DOS days.
I still have version 1.0 of Lottery Director on a 5.25-inch (360K) floppy
dating from 1985. It played on a monochrome IBM PC-XT, 8088 CPU with 4.7
MHz clock, mouse optional. Incidentally I still have the XT,
museum-quality. I'll give it to a school or somebody's archive someday.
Joe
Ion Saliu
news:3EDAC1F1...@icdus.com
Gail:
You got out that bottle or that skirt?
You are lying about those disks and years. She didn’t have no disk, no
software in 1985. I talked to her. She had no computer stuff even in
1988. She only showed a bunch of lotto tickets in her ads in 1985/1986.
She claimed those were winning tickets. She was checked at closer range
and she dropped her winning claims. The tickets in her ads were
ordinary, losing tickets. But she fooled the network television, didn’t
she, old pal? FBI put her in her place…
At that time, in the 1980’s, ads in tabloids promised good bucks for
losing lotto tickets. They were used for a couple of years as
advertising and tax deduction scheme.
But you are a scheme too, Gail, my main man!
How about Lotto Logix? Didn’t Steve “Ding Bastard” Player start his
first operation in the 1980’s under the “trademark” of “Lotto Logic”?
“as iwin.com and iwon.com can both exist, I don't see any problem with
lotwin.com and lotwon.com getting along. “
No, there is no lotwon.com. The .com makes a difference in legal
disputes. But we was talking about trademarks, not URLs. LotWon.com and
LotWin.com may not lead (easily) to jury awards. But LotWon as a
standalone trademark and LotWin as a standalone trademark would
definitely lead to jury awards!
Ion Saliu
http://www.saliu.com/
Robert Perkis
Ion Saliu wrote:
>
> "Robert Gail Perkis" <rob...@icdus.com> wrote in message
> news:3EDAC1F1...@icdus.com
>
> Gail:
> You got out that bottle or that skirt?
> You are lying about those disks and years. She didn’t have no disk, no
> software in 1985. I talked to her. She had no computer stuff even in
Always a pleasure dealing with you . . . I don't lie, I'm
looking right at one of her disks and it says, "Copyright
1985" why don't you ask her why she claims to have a
copyright on an item that you say didn't exist.
> 1988. She only showed a bunch of lotto tickets in her ads in 1985/1986.
> She claimed those were winning tickets. She was checked at closer range
> and she dropped her winning claims. The tickets in her ads were
> ordinary, losing tickets. But she fooled the network television, didn’t
> she, old pal? FBI put her in her place…
Think I'll wait until I hear this from a credible source
before I add it to my list of things I know likely to be
true. No offence Ion, hifi, Baghdad bob, but you've not
been exactly been 100% around here on any subject.
>
> At that time, in the 1980’s, ads in tabloids promised good bucks for
> losing lotto tickets. They were used for a couple of years as
> advertising and tax deduction scheme.
I remember the ads for how you could play lotto for free
and get all your money back. They failed to mention in
the ads you had to live in the U.K.
>
> But you are a scheme too, Gail, my main man!
> How about Lotto Logix? Didn’t Steve “Ding Bastard” Player start his
> first operation in the 1980’s under the “trademark” of “Lotto Logic”?
He might have in the opticon whatever days, when I looked
to see if anyone else was using Lotto-Logix/Lotto-Logic
he wasn't, but there was abandon Lotto-Logic shareware
denied by the current Lotto-Logic lottery software co.
who realizing the Boolean search engine mistake of a
hyphenated name have changed their domain.
>
> “as iwin.com and iwon.com can both exist, I don't see any problem with
> lotwin.com and lotwon.com getting along. “
> No, there is no lotwon.com. The .com makes a difference in legal
> disputes. But we was talking about trademarks, not URLs. LotWon.com and
> LotWin.com may not lead (easily) to jury awards. But LotWon as a
> standalone trademark and LotWin as a standalone trademark would
> definitely lead to jury awards!
"A trademark is a word, phrase, symbol or design, or a
combination of words, phrases, symbols or designs, that
identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods of
one party from those of others."
Unless they set out to steal business from you by tricking
people into buying their product instead of yours by using
a simular name and you could prove the loss, what with their
being in another country, I wouldn't expect much to come of
any complaints. I suspect a judge would view any lottery
program as a scam and toss it all out once the maths prof.
got off the stand.
Robert Perkis
I know Amfilter is very old and had features not found
in the usual run of the mill software. There is nothing
in the shareware version I distribute that dates it. I
checked the minimal help and readme file, even looked at
the source code and ran the program. I have a registered
version somewhere, I'll have to dig for it.
There were a fair number of lottery softwares by the late
eighties, JMP had LottoMaster in 87 (became Versa Bet) lots
of shareware was coming out. As Ion said most were little
more then hot and cold with some wheels. I had EOL for
Commodore 64, that's gotta be old and it's big thing was
it could chart Pairs!!!
The thing is wheels predate anything by years. I have a
Play to Win Lotto-Keno Super Systems book by Zdenek V.
Pavlik, of wheels copyrighted in 1980. Let's Beat the
Lotteries and Numbers (Increase Your Chances to Win with
Combinations and Permutations easy as 1-2-3.) book by
Tadeas Hayek copyrighted 1981. I'm sure systems from
europe predate these by as many years as they had pick
your own numbers lotteries before we did.
Robert Serotic's first book was copyrighted 1986, Lotto
How To Play And Win Introduction to Systems and Strategies.
Anyone with a copy can verify or check amazon used books.
Robert Perkis / http://www.lotto-logix.com/
Ion Saliu
> • A number of lotto wheels are available to you for free from
> saliu.com. The wheels (abbreviated systems) are compressed in three
> self-extracting EXE files: SYSTEM6.EXE, WHEEL5.EXE, WHEEL7.EXE.
>
> WHEEL5.EXE: Lotto-5 Wheels
> SYS-9 35 = 9-number '3 of 5' wheel, 3 combinations
> SYS-14 35 = 14-number '3 of 5' wheel, 13 combinations
> SYS-16 35 = 16-number '3 of 5' wheel, 35 combinations
>
> WHEEL7.EXE: Lotto-7 Wheels
>
> SYS-10 57 = 10-number '5 of 7' wheel, 3 combinations
> SYS-11 57 = 11-number '5 of 7' wheel, 5 combinations
> SYS-12 57 = 12-number '5 of 7' wheel, 11 combinations
> SYS-13 57 = 13-number '5 of 7' wheel, 18 combinations
> SYS-14 57 = 14-number '5 of 7' wheel, 27 combinations
> SYS-15 57 = 15-number '5 of 7' wheel, 43 combinations
> SYS-16 57 = 16-number '5 of 7' wheel, 63 combinations
> SYS-17 57 = 17-number '5 of 7' wheel, 105 combinations
> SYS-18 57 = 18-number '5 of 7' wheel, 154 combinations
> SYS-19 57 = 19-number '5 of 7' wheel, 159 combinations
> SYS-20 57 = 20-number '5 of 7' wheel, 253 combinations
> SYS-20 57 = 20-number '5 of 7' wheel, 366 combinations
>
> SYSTEM6.EXE: Lotto-6 Wheels
> SYS-9 46 = 9-number '4 of 6' wheel, 3 combinations
> SYS-12 46 = 12-number '4 of 6' wheel, 10 combinations
> SYS12 46 = 12-number '4 of 6' wheel, 6 combinations
> SYS-14 46 = 14-number '4 of 6' wheel, 23 combinations
> SYS-15 46 = 15-number '4 of 6' wheel, 31 combinations
> SYS-16 46 = 16-number '4 of 6' wheel, 53 combinations
> SYS-20 36 = 20-number '3 of 6' wheel, 30 combinations
> combinations
> SYS-30 F2 = 30-number , 2 FAVORITES, '4 of 6' wheel, 48
> combinations
> WHEEL42 36 = 42-number '3 of 6' wheel, 252 combinations
>
> the random number generator at http://saliu.com/calculator_generator.html
> as higher prizes are concerned.
>
> picks. Repeat the randomizing procedure several times.
>
> •• Use FillWheel.exe to 'wheel' your picks; i.e. replace the
> theoretical numbers in the SYS/WHEEL files by your picks.
>
> ‘3 of 6' lotto wheel: WHEEL49.36 (416 combinations). I thought it
> would perform better than any random set with the same amount of
> combinations. Quote:
>
> "Essentially, I said that WHEEL49.36 always performs better because it
> is a system. That is, all the combinations are linked by certain
> rules.
> I explained how important it is to have balanced frequencies of the
> numbers taken individually. I also explained how important is to have
> a
> good balance of the pairs. The statistical balance is the main reason
> why I didn't even bother to check my wheel against more real drawing
> data files."
>
> That wheel (WHEEL49.36) had a quick ‘5-winner' hit in a lottery. It
> also performed better in the short run in other lotteries. One
> rec.gambling.lottery regular, Joe Roberts-CDEX created a random set
> (albeit not entirely random!): CDEX49.36. He challenged WHEEL49.36 to
> a test. Another r.g.l. old-timer, Nick Koutras tested both "wheels"
> and wrote:
>
> "If we use real payoffs (3-w=10$, 4-win=70$, 5-win=1722$) and using
> the Saliu Design we shall generate more profit by 5.3236081% than
> using the Random Design."
>
> I changed my position diametrically. So did Joe Roberts. I would give
> Joe full credit, but his original opinion was motivated only by being
> opposite to mine. Then he also diametrically changed his opinion, only
> because I changed mine diametrically! He now believes that the wheels
> perform better as compared to random sets of equal size. I changed my
> opinion based on facts, specifically based on data analysis. I have
> checked the wheels and random sets against more data files (real draws
> files) and larger data files.
>
> I tested WHEEL49.36, CDEX49.36, and GENER.49 against the UK lotto-6
> draw file (without bonus number). My UK-6 file has 758 draws. The
> three test wheels consist of 416 combinations each.
> WHEEL49.36: 0 ‘6 hits', 5 ‘5 hits', 308 ‘4 hits', 5625 ‘3 hits';
> CDEX49.36: 0 ‘6 hits', 8 ‘5 hits', 323 ‘4 hits', 5493 ‘3 hits';
> GENER.49: 0 ‘6 hits', 9 ‘5 hits', 333 ‘4 hits', 5549 ‘3 hits';
> It is clear that the real wheel (WHEEL49.36) performs better only in
> regards to the guarantee it was designed for: ‘3 of 6'. The random
> sets, however clearly perform better in the higher prize categories.
> For a mathematical explanation read:
http://saliu.com/lotto_wheels.html
http://saliu.com/bbs/messages/11.html
http://saliu.com/bbs/messages/wheel.html
http://saliu.com/wheel.html
> You cannot use LotWon, SuperPower or MDIEditor and Lotto to generate
> test sets. Like the universal random number generator at
> www.saliu.com, LotWon enables a group of data-independent internal
> filters. In addition, LotWon employs some data-dependent internal
> filters automatically. Therefore, the combination sets may not have
> any hit in a past draw file. It will have far better results in future
> draws, however. It is recommended to run the combination generators
> several times before using a combination set. If you run the universal
> random number generator at www.saliu.com a few hundred times, the
> probability to hit higher prizes is undoubtedly higher.
>
> Download the free lotto-5, lotto-6, and lotto-7 wheels from the lottery software site:
http://saliu.com/free-lotto-tools.html
>
The theory of lottery strategies has come to full fruition. Both ‘static’ and ‘dynamic’ strategies are fully analyzed, including the ‘reversed lottery strategy’. The comprehensive analysis pairs each type of strategy with its specific lottery software application.
The lotto wheels are, by far, the most popular form of lottery strategies. Being partially strategies, I consider them ‘lottery systems’ or ‘abbreviated/reduced lotto systems’.
http://software.saliu.com/lottery-strategy-lotto-strategies.html
The Best Lottery Strategies: Foundation, Application of the Lotto Strategy Concept
Ion Saliu
>
> The lotto wheels are, by far, the most popular form of lottery strategies. Being partially strategies, I consider them ‘lottery systems’ or ‘abbreviated/reduced lotto systems’.
>
We might as well say the common lotto wheels are ‘one-dimensional’. That is, they are derived from ONE line (string) of numbers:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
One of the best-known reduced systems derived from the string of numbers above:
1,2,3, 4,5,6
1,2,3, 7,8,9
1,2,3, 10,11,12
4,5,6, 7,8,9
4,5,6, 10,11,12
7,8,9, 10,11,12
The wheel guarantees the ‘4 of 6’ minimum guarantee in 6 tickets. Even if it is called the ‘perfect lotto wheel’, it still is ‘static’. The main drawback is the low efficiency in selecting the 12 numbers to wheel.
The most advanced lotto wheels are ‘multi-dimensional’. We might as well call them ‘positional lotto wheels’. They are derived from multiple strings of numbers; e.g. 6 lines (strings) of numbers, one for each position of a 6-number lotto game.
It has been convincingly proven by SALIU.COM that lottery systems grouping the numbers by positions are far more effective that one-line or non-positional systems. Consequentially, wheeling the numbers position-by-position creates reduced systems that hit significantly more often (also hit more winners). You can see proofs right here, in the venerable RGL Academy of Lottery:
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/rec.gambling.lottery/jsjtCP6Pszc
Positional Lotto Wheels from Groups of Numbers
Ion Saliu
>
> Sometimes a random performs better than a wheel in any hit category. I
> presented the issue in "The myth of lotto wheels or abbreviated lotto
> systems":
> http://saliu.com/bbs/messages/11.html
> How 'bout the "world champion", the 163-combination wheel guaranteeing
> 100%+ '3 in 6'? Well, that wheel, too, followed closely the official
> lotto odds: Total Hits: 0 '6 of 6'; 1 '5 of 6'; 104 '4 in 6'; 1872 '3
> in 6'. A 57-combination random set produced, line for line, 117 '4 in
> 6'; 1905 '3 in 6'.
>
NEW WORLD-RECORD LOTTO WHEELING W(54, 3 of 6) = 274
There is a new world champion in lotto wheeling. It covers 54 unique numbers and assures the ‘3 of 6’ minimum guarantee in 274 lines. It beats the old world-record of (49, 3 of 6) = 163 by 17 percentage points. For PARITY, the (49, 3 of 6) lotto wheel should have a maximum of 136 lines.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/rec.gambling.lottery/jsjtCP6Pszc
Ion Saliu,
Founder of Lotto Wheeling Mathematics
Ion Saliu
15 numbers first ball set = '4 of 5'; 5 numbers second ball set = '1 of 2'; 122 combinations
1 2 3 4 5 1 3
1 2 3 4 5 3 4
1 2 3 9 15 1 3
1 2 3 9 15 3 4
1 2 4 9 10 1 3
1 2 4 9 10 3 4
1 2 5 9 15 1 3
1 2 5 9 15 3 4
1 2 6 13 15 1 3
1 2 6 13 15 3 4
1 2 8 14 15 1 3
1 2 8 14 15 3 4
1 3 4 6 11 1 3
1 3 4 6 11 3 4
1 3 5 7 8 1 3
1 3 5 7 8 3 4
1 3 6 8 15 1 3
1 3 6 8 15 3 4
1 3 8 9 10 1 3
1 3 8 9 10 3 4
1 3 11 13 15 1 3
1 3 11 13 15 3 4
1 4 5 14 15 1 3
1 4 5 14 15 3 4
1 4 7 10 11 1 3
1 4 7 10 11 3 4
1 4 9 14 15 1 3
1 4 9 14 15 3 4
1 5 6 11 15 1 3
1 5 6 11 15 3 4
1 5 8 12 13 1 3
1 5 8 12 13 3 4
1 6 7 9 12 1 3
1 6 7 9 12 3 4
1 6 9 12 14 1 3
1 6 9 12 14 3 4
1 7 9 10 15 1 3
1 7 9 10 15 3 4
1 8 10 12 13 1 3
1 8 10 12 13 3 4
1 12 13 14 15 1 3
1 12 13 14 15 3 4
2 3 4 12 13 1 3
2 3 4 12 13 3 4
2 3 5 14 15 1 3
2 3 5 14 15 3 4
2 3 7 10 11 1 3
2 3 7 10 11 3 4
2 3 9 14 15 1 3
2 3 9 14 15 3 4
2 4 5 9 15 1 3
2 4 5 9 15 3 4
2 4 6 13 15 1 3
2 4 6 13 15 3 4
2 4 8 14 15 1 3
2 4 8 14 15 3 4
2 5 6 8 15 1 3
2 5 6 8 15 3 4
2 5 8 9 10 1 3
2 5 8 9 10 3 4
2 5 11 13 15 1 3
2 5 11 13 15 3 4
2 6 8 12 14 1 3
2 6 8 12 14 3 4
2 7 8 10 15 1 3
2 7 8 10 15 3 4
2 8 9 10 15 1 3
2 8 9 10 15 3 4
2 9 13 14 15 1 3
2 9 13 14 15 3 4
3 4 5 10 15 1 3
3 4 5 10 15 3 4
3 4 7 8 12 1 3
3 4 7 8 12 3 4
3 4 9 10 15 1 3
3 4 9 10 15 3 4
3 5 6 9 14 1 3
3 5 6 9 14 3 4
3 5 8 9 15 1 3
3 5 8 9 15 3 4
3 5 13 14 15 1 3
3 5 13 14 15 3 4
3 6 9 10 11 1 3
3 6 9 10 11 3 4
3 7 8 12 13 1 3
3 7 8 12 13 3 4
3 8 9 12 13 1 3
3 8 9 12 13 3 4
3 10 11 13 15 1 3
3 10 11 13 15 3 4
4 5 7 8 12 1 3
4 5 7 8 12 3 4
4 5 9 10 15 1 3
4 5 9 10 15 3 4
4 6 7 11 13 1 3
4 6 7 11 13 3 4
4 6 10 12 14 1 3
4 6 10 12 14 3 4
4 7 9 14 15 1 3
4 7 9 14 15 3 4
4 8 11 13 15 1 3
4 8 11 13 15 3 4
5 6 7 9 12 1 3
5 6 7 9 12 3 4
5 6 9 12 14 1 3
5 6 9 12 14 3 4
5 7 9 10 15 1 3
5 7 9 10 15 3 4
5 8 10 12 13 1 3
5 8 10 12 13 3 4
5 12 13 14 15 1 3
5 12 13 14 15 3 4
6 7 11 13 14 1 3
6 7 11 13 14 3 4
6 9 10 13 15 1 3
6 9 10 13 15 3 4
7 8 10 13 15 1 3
7 8 10 13 15 3 4
8 9 10 11 15 1 3
8 9 10 11 15 3 4
10 11 13 14 15 1 3
10 11 13 14 15 3 4
http://saliu.com/euro_millions_wheels.html
Euromillions Wheels, Wheeling, Reduced Lotto Systems, Software
Ion Saliu
14 regular numbers, 14 Bonus (Mega Ball) numbers, 42 combinations; '4 of 6 regardless of Mega Ball'
1 2 3 5 8 8
1 2 4 5 11 11
1 2 5 7 8 14
1 2 6 10 14 3
1 2 9 11 13 6
1 3 4 9 13 9
1 3 6 7 8 12
1 4 6 12 13 7
1 4 9 13 14 10
1 5 7 9 13 13
1 6 7 8 11 2
1 6 10 12 14 5
1 8 9 12 13 8
2 3 4 7 11 11
2 3 5 9 12 14
2 3 7 9 12 3
2 4 5 6 7 6
2 4 6 8 14 9
2 4 8 11 14 12
2 5 6 12 13 1
2 5 9 13 14 4
2 6 9 10 12 7
2 7 10 12 14 10
3 4 5 6 14 13
3 4 6 10 13 2
3 4 9 11 12 5
3 5 7 8 13 8
3 5 11 12 13 11
3 6 9 12 14 14
3 8 9 10 13 3
4 5 6 9 12 6
4 5 8 13 14 9
4 6 8 10 12 12
4 7 9 11 13 1
4 10 12 13 14 4
5 6 10 11 12 7
5 8 9 10 14 10
6 7 9 10 12 13
6 10 11 12 13 2
8 9 11 13 14 5
http://saliu.com/megamillions_wheels.html
Mega Millions Wheel Software, Wheels, Wheeling Numbers, Abbreviated Lottery Systems
Ion Saliu
16 regular numbers, 16 Power Balls, 71 lines; '4 of 6 regardless of Power Ball'
1 2 3 5 12 6
1 2 4 5 8 4
1 2 4 14 16 2
1 2 6 7 12 16
1 2 7 11 12 14
1 2 9 14 16 12
1 3 4 7 12 10
1 3 5 8 11 8
1 3 6 10 15 6
1 3 8 10 13 4
1 3 11 14 15 2
1 4 5 12 16 16
1 4 7 9 12 14
1 4 9 11 14 12
1 5 6 8 14 10
1 5 7 13 15 8
1 5 10 12 16 6
1 6 7 15 16 4
1 6 10 14 15 2
1 7 9 11 16 16
1 8 9 13 15 14
1 9 11 14 15 12
2 3 4 6 10 10
2 3 5 7 8 8
2 3 6 9 10 6
2 3 7 14 16 4
2 3 10 13 16 2
2 4 5 10 14 16
2 4 6 15 16 14
2 4 8 14 15 12
2 5 6 7 11 10
2 5 7 10 16 8
2 5 9 14 15 6
2 6 7 11 15 4
2 6 10 11 13 2
2 7 8 15 16 16
2 8 9 10 16 14
2 9 10 13 16 12
3 4 5 6 10 10
3 4 6 8 10 8
3 4 7 12 14 6
3 4 10 11 16 4
3 5 6 11 13 2
3 5 8 10 15 16
3 5 11 15 16 14
3 6 8 11 14 12
3 6 12 14 15 10
3 7 10 12 14 8
3 8 10 14 15 6
3 10 11 13 14 4
4 5 6 11 13 2
4 5 8 10 15 16
4 5 11 15 16 14
4 6 8 11 14 12
4 6 12 14 15 10
4 7 10 12 14 8
4 8 10 14 15 6
4 10 11 13 14 4
5 6 7 13 15 2
5 6 10 12 15 16
5 7 9 11 12 14
5 8 9 12 14 12
5 9 11 12 16 10
6 7 8 10 14 8
6 7 11 14 16 6
6 8 12 14 16 4
6 11 12 13 15 2
7 8 12 13 15 16
7 10 13 15 16 14
8 10 12 13 14 12
10 11 12 13 16 10
http://saliu.com/powerball_wheels.html
Powerball Wheels, Wheel, Wheeling, Lotto Systems, Software
Ion Saliu
> • A number of lotto wheels are available to you for free from
>
I had already written a very special lottery wheeling program I offered totally FREE: ‘FillWheel.exe’ (year of grace 2002).
In the year of grace 2012 I created an even more special program: ‘LottoWheeler.exe’
— the very best lottery wheeling software or lotto wheeler. Both programs were presented in great details on my site:
• http://saliu.com/bbs/messages/857.html
• Lotto Wheeling Software: Fill Lottery Wheels with Player's Picks, Own Numbers.
The whole package of lotto wheels and wheeling software is also available from this location:
• http://saliu.com/freeware/
• Freeware: Software, Lotto Wheels, Blackjack, Roulette, Systems, Random Numbers, Odds Calculators, Lexicographic Algorithms, Backup.
Scroll down to the following link and right-click on it:
'Lotto Wheeling Software' (zip file also available from CNet's 'Download.com'). Then 'Save as' onto your computer.
Notable psychologists recommend a special activity while you do lottery wheeling. It is a pleasurable, activity, mind you. Listen to this great song, 'Wheel In The Sky' by Journey.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez-lRQAklV4
Kotkoduck (aka: Robert Perkis, BobP) and Kokostirk (aka: Joe Roberts, CDEX), co-founders of this community, are huge fans of the song; it is kinduv like their anthem. No wonder they became grand-masters of lotto wheeling!
“[Lotto] wheel in the sky keeps on turnin'
I don't know where I'll be tomorrow...
Wheel in the sky keeps on turnin'.”
Ion Saliu
You saw in this Google thread the analysis of one of the very best lotto-6 wheels (18 numbers, '4 of 6', 51 lines):
• https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/rec.gambling.lottery/W0NiO5uNej0
Few wheels are better balanced than that one.
How about the smallest lottery wheel for 6-number lottos: 49 numbers, '3 of 6', 57 lines? It matches the odds exactly. It won't hit exactly in every drawing (or a situation when it is played). However, it will hit ON AVERAGE once every drawing or play situation. You play this wheel 10 times, it will give you 10 '3 of 6' hits.
This lotto wheel will perform better because lexicographical balanced. For once, it avoids combos like the dreadful '1 2 3 4 5 6' or '44 45 46 47 48 49'.
1 2 9 15 40 42
1 3 24 30 31 40
1 5 15 17 22 30
1 7 17 19 29 34
1 10 12 25 27 34
1 13 22 23 34 45
1 19 27 33 39 45
2 3 12 32 37 46
2 5 8 21 30 47
2 7 9 26 37 38
2 9 17 22 29 47
2 12 24 27 30 43
2 17 33 37 42 43
3 4 8 19 25 38
3 6 7 15 40 42
3 8 10 25 38 43
3 10 25 34 37 40
3 14 23 34 38 49
3 22 25 26 32 41
4 6 8 19 25 44
4 8 12 16 18 25
4 11 12 14 41 42
4 14 31 42 43 45
4 22 40 41 44 46
5 7 12 21 33 46
5 9 23 36 39 47
5 13 15 22 30 43
5 18 26 31 37 48
6 7 16 20 30 36
6 10 12 14 26 44
6 13 20 30 37 43
6 19 25 26 38 44
7 8 26 34 35 38
7 11 26 29 39 42
7 16 19 35 38 41
7 29 32 34 45 47
8 11 22 28 35 38
8 16 17 32 33 42
8 27 36 37 44 46
9 12 32 38 42 43
9 18 21 29 33 47
10 11 22 30 33 46
10 16 17 34 44 47
10 27 37 40 41 48
11 15 31 32 37 48
11 26 34 37 45 47
12 17 21 24 31 35
13 14 19 24 32 33
13 21 26 34 36 49
14 18 23 33 38 46
15 17 23 33 41 49
16 17 28 41 44 47
17 19 22 26 31 45
18 22 30 34 44 46
20 21 35 37 44 46
22 27 29 34 37 46
27 32 41 43 47 49