New WR - C (49, 6, 3, 6)
Mathias Liesener
I have just improved the old wheel. It still have 163 rows but now it
covers one 3-match combination more.
Now it covers 3044 instead of 3043 which was the old record created by
Stefan Vandevelde.
If anyone is interested in getting the wheel it should be available
soon at Richard´s Site (merseyworld).
Regards
Mathias
Robert Perkis
Mathias Liesener wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I have just improved the old wheel. It still have 163 rows but now it
> covers one 3-match combination more.
>
> Now it covers 3044 instead of 3043 which was the old record created by
> Stefan Vandevelde.
>
> If anyone is interested in getting the wheel it should be available
> soon at Richard愀 Site (merseyworld).
>
> Regards
> Mathias
Congratulations, nice to see continued improvements.
Think I got to hold the 2if record for about a week.
http://lottery.merseyworld.com/
Robert Perkis / r.g.l.faq / http://www.lotto-logix.com/
sm...@gmx.de
much more 3-match combinations can be covered,
but I don't want to see again a record wheel of mine
to be posted on merseyworld with a different inventor name,
or even with my name.
So I will hold it private.
I think that a challenge that measures a 3 if 3 covering with all 49
numbers is nonsense,
because with 49 numbers we will have always 6 right numbers and not
only 3.
A 3 of 3 measuring is ok at 46 numbers where 3 of the 6 winning
numbers
could be on the rest of 3 numbers.
Good Luck, Manfred
For reference, what happened:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.gambling.lottery/browse_thread/thread/87d99541cfeb6377/120f9fb368d4b45c?lnk=gst&q=manfred+record+163+merseyworld#120f9fb368d4b45c
Mathias Liesener schrieb:
bilgekhan
>
> Well done Mathias!
>
> much more 3-match combinations can be covered,
> but I don't want to see again a record wheel of mine
> to be posted on merseyworld with a different inventor name,
> or even with my name.
> So I will hold it private.
>
> I think that a challenge that measures a 3 if 3 covering
> with all 49 numbers is nonsense, because with 49 numbers
> we will have always 6 right numbers and not only 3.
> A 3 of 3 measuring is ok at 46 numbers where 3 of the 6 winning
> numbers could be on the rest of 3 numbers.
No, it's not a 3if3 but a 3if6.
According to this table http://www.fortclick.com/lottery/combinations/wheeling.htm
it theoretically needs only 86.24 blocks !
Making this an integer gives:
86.24 * 6 / 49 = 10.56 --> 11 (each number comes that often)
Then 11 * 49 / 6 = 89.83 --> 90 blocks
Let's even add 50% to it --> makes 135 blocks.
As can be seen there is much hot air between
163 blocks and 90 or 135 blocks! :-)
Ie. 163 is 21% more than 135, and 81% more than 90 !
So there seems to be something fundamentally wrong with this weel.
I think one shold remove the C(22,6,3,3,1,77) and try with the rest,
or start completely from scratch. Isn't it?
> Good Luck, Manfred
>
> For reference, what happened:
>
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.gambling.lottery/browse_thread/ \
sm...@gmx.de
it is a 3 if 6 wheel with 100% covering.
But to see the quality of the different 163 lines
wheels, the covering 4if6 and 5if6 says more than
3if3 because 3if3 is not realistic at 49 numbers, only 3if6 is
realistic.
But 3if3 is the (nonsense) measuring at merseyworld.
The measuring should be how many single 3s could be reached with the
wheel if 6 numbers are drawn.
As less single 3s we have, as more multiple 3s we will have with the
163 lines wheel.
There are also optimizations of single wheels with 163 lines
but they are all open wheels with smaller than 100 % coverings.
With a single wheel up to today no closed wheel with 163 lines
could be found. The record for a closed single wheel is more than
200 lines. In RGL this topic is some years old.
Please see here:
http://hem.bredband.net/b599956/wheels/Lotto-Wheels/Partial/alternate.htm
If you'll find a method to reduce the redundant coverings
we would be happy to hear about it.
Good luck, Manfred
bilgekhan schrieb:
bilgekhan
>
> Sure bilgekhan,
>
> it is a 3 if 6 wheel with 100% covering.
> But to see the quality of the different 163 lines
> wheels, the covering 4if6 and 5if6 says more than
> 3if3 because 3if3 is not realistic at 49 numbers,
> only 3if6 is realistic.
> But 3if3 is the (nonsense) measuring at merseyworld.
> The measuring should be how many single 3s could be
> reached with the wheel if 6 numbers are drawn.
You are right, one indeed cannot say 3if3,
it is of course 3if6 in this case.
> As less single 3s we have, as more multiple 3s we will have
> with the 163 lines wheel.
Can you please explain this. I guess you mean 3-combinations
or simply triples, right?
C(49,3) has 18424 different triples in total.
And in these minimum coverings the task is of course
to cover all these triples in the least number of blocks
with each having 6 numbers (k=6 or "pick-6").
Currently one needs 163 blocks to achieve this,
although maths says theoretically only 86.24 blocks would be needed.
But in practice this seems to be impossible. Even doing it in
135 blocks seems impossible.
BTW, some people say that C(49,6,3,6,1) has been improved
to 162 or 161 blocks or even shorter, but has not published it.
I read this in this German posting dated 2006-07-16:
"Kann das System C(49,6,3,6)=163 verbessert werden? -
Gedanken über ein bekanntes System"
http://48678.rapidforum.com/topic=100674692216&search=C(49
Anybody know details about this story, who the author is etc.?
> There are also optimizations of single wheels with 163 lines
> but they are all open wheels with smaller than 100 % coverings.
> With a single wheel up to today no closed wheel with 163 lines
> could be found. The record for a closed single wheel is more than
> 200 lines. In RGL this topic is some years old.
>
> Please see here:
> http://hem.bredband.net/b599956/wheels/Lotto-Wheels/Partial/alternate.htm
>
> If you'll find a method to reduce the redundant coverings
> we would be happy to hear about it.
>
> Good luck, Manfred
Thanks for the link.
sm...@gmx.de
Hello bilgekhan,
you are right, triplets or triples is the right expression.
Below are two winning tables of record wheels to explain what
I said for a comparison of 6of49 wheels:
At 6 right numbers at Mathias's wheel there is a 25.04515%
possibility that only a single triplet will be matched. All other
possibilities are two and more triplets (what is better).
At my wheel there is a 24.71697% possibility to match only a single
triplet. That means there are more possibilities to have 2 and more
triplets from the 6 number drawing. Also it means that the redundancy
is lower.
The difference certainly is neglectible, but it counts for measuring
a record.
Good luck, Manfred
Winning table of Manfred's record wheel from 2005
C(27,6,3,4)=86 + C(22,6,3,3)=77 = C(49,6,3,6)=163
(wheel not published)
6 5 4 3 Total, %, Acc %
- - - 1 3456376 24,71697 24,71697
- - - 2 3478398 24,87445 49,59143
- - - 3 1007006 7,20122 56,79265
- - - 4 2819762 20,16447 76,95712
- - - 5 531157 3,79837 80,75549
- - - 6 230870 1,65098 82,40647
- - - 7 67084 0,47973 82,8862
- - - 8 59195 0,42331 83,30951
- - - 9 48288 0,34531 83,65482
- - - 10 219962 1,57298 85,22779
- - - 11 10447 0,07471 85,3025
- - - 12 4700 0,03361 85,33611
- - - 13 1223 0,00875 85,34486
- - - 14 278 0,00199 85,34685
- - - 15 210 0,0015 85,34835
- - - 16 62 0,00044 85,34879
- - - 17 16 0,00011 85,34891
- - - 18 9 0,00006 85,34897
- - - 20 2464 0,01762 85,36659
- - 1 0-17 1829737 13,08468 98,45127
- - 2 0-15 151649 1,08446 99,53573
- - 3 0-14 20927 0,14965 99,68538
- - 4 0-11 1610 0,01151 99,69689
- - 5 0-7 97 0,00069 99,69759
- - 6 1-5 72 0,00051 99,6981
- 1 0-4 0-16 42054 0,30073 99,99883
1 0 0 0-12 163 0,00117 100
The 3if3 report shows that 3072 triplets are covered with this wheel
Mathias's record wheel at Merseyworld covers 3044 triplets.
The Merseyworld fans still have much to do to be better than my
record wheel.
This is the winning table of Mathias Liesener's 163 lines record
wheel:
6 5 4 3 Total, %, Acc %
- - - 1 3502268 25,04515 25,04515
- - - 2 3397933 24,29904 49,34419
- - - 3 1059905 7,57951 56,92370
- - - 4 2864774 20,48635 77,41006
- - - 5 476410 3,40687 80,81692
- - - 6 227564 1,62734 82,44426
- - - 7 85313 0,61008 83,05435
- - - 8 65866 0,47102 83,52536
- - - 9 35747 0,25563 83,78099
- - - 10 222261 1,58942 85,37041
- - - 11 11185 0,07999 85,45039
- - - 12 3779 0,02702 85,47742
- - - 13 1085 0,00776 85,48518
- - - 14 274 0,00196 85,48714
- - - 15 69 0,00049 85,48763
- - - 16 22 0,00016 85,48779
- - - 17 7 0,00005 85,48784
- - - 18 6 0,00004 85,48788
- - - 19 12 0,00009 85,48797
- - - 20 2464 0,01762 85,50559
- - 1 0-17 1796186 12,84475 98,35034
- - 2 1-16 162562 1,16250 99,51284
- - 3 1-13 24066 0,17210 99,68494
- - 4 0-10 1738 0,01243 99,69736
- - 5 2-6 68 0,00049 99,69785
- - 6 0-7 56 0,00040 99,69825
- - 7 4 1 0,00001 99,69826
- 1 0-4 0-15 42012 0,30043 99,99869
- 2 0-2 4-7 18 0,00013 99,99882
- 3 0 6-7 2 0,00001 99,99883
1 0 0-2 0-13 163 0,00117 100,00000
Only for comparison to a 163 line closed two cover wheel,
below is the winning table of Manfred's 163 line single cover, open
wheel with 99.48253 % covering (the highest covering today known):
No win at 0.517%
one triplet at 5.624%
but 3 or 4 triplets at 50.1 %
and a better covering than 4 triplets at more than 24%
But be careful, a single 4 hit without triplets (don't know how much %
because it is summarized) is more bad than 5 or more triplets
(wheel not published)
6 5 4 3 Total, %, Acc %
- - - - 72362 0,51747 0,51747
- - - 1 786508 5,62442 6,14189
- - - 2 2761222 19,74584 25,88773
- - - 3 4122204 29,47839 55,36612
- - - 4 2885143 20,63201 75,99813
- - - 5 980558 7,01209 83,01022
- - - 6 163875 1,17189 84,18211
- - - 7 13478 0,09638 84,27850
- - - 8 478 0,00342 84,28192
- - - 9 8 0,00006 84,28197
- - 1 0-7 2103927 15,04544 99,32742
- - 2 0-5 51744 0,37003 99,69744
- - 3 0-3 92 0,00066 99,69810
- 1 0-1 0-5 42054 0,30073 99,99883
1 0 0 0-2 163 0,00117 100,00000
Also the winning table for Manfred's single closed wheel with 308
lines:
(not published)
6 5 4 3 Total, %, Accumulated %
- - - 1 13667 0,09773 0,09773
- - - 2 124973 0,89370 0,99143
- - - 3 557949 3,98996 4,98139
- - - 4 1421183 10,16306 15,14445
- - - 5 2279227 16,29903 31,44348
- - - 6 2439666 17,44635 48,88984
- - - 7 1811443 12,95385 61,84369
- - - 8 952469 6,81122 68,65492
- - - 9 363049 2,59621 71,25112
- - - 10 101537 0,72610 71,97723
- - - 11 21609 0,15453 72,13176
- - - 12 3309 0,02366 72,15542
- - - 13 444 0,00318 72,15859
- - - 14 33 0,00024 72,15883
- - - 15 5 0,00004 72,15887
- - 1 0-13 3473667 24,84062 96,99949
- - 2 0-11 328600 2,34986 99,34935
- - 3 0-9 11063 0,07911 99,42846
- - 4 0-6 159 0,00114 99,42960
- 1 0-2 0-11 79448 0,56814 99,99774
- 2 0 0-5 8 0,00006 99,99780
1 0 0-1 0-7 308 0,00220 100,00000
bilgekhan schrieb:
bilgekhan
So then it would mean that looking for wheels with L>1 would be
(and usually are) more economically than L=1 I think.
Ie. in a wheel where all numbers of the game are used (ie. 49)
what is the minimum wheel which guarantees
at least 2 times 3 right
at least 3 times 3 right
ie.
at least n times 3 right ?...
This is IMO a good idea for a wheel which uses all 49 numbers.
I think at some point (L=x) there must be an optimum...
Unfortunately I'm not so good in wheel design and have got
not enough time at the moment to track this IMO fascinating idea.
ga...@justservices.com
wrote:
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
This was where I was at last year, 49 6 3 6 = 163 op...@99.47% (anyone
wanna claim this one? please feel free)....
Published.........
1 2 15 41 43 49
1 3 4 25 28 47
1 3 7 17 20 31
1 4 22 39 42 44
1 5 16 28 38 49
1 5 23 27 30 31
1 6 7 14 18 35
1 6 13 21 42 44
1 8 9 19 33 34
1 8 12 22 25 29
1 9 14 21 24 29
1 10 11 23 26 45
1 10 34 36 40 43
1 11 32 39 40 46
1 12 18 19 37 41
1 13 26 30 32 38
1 15 20 23 46 48
1 16 17 24 36 46
1 17 33 43 47 48
1 35 37 40 45 49
2 3 11 14 25 39
2 3 21 30 40 48
2 4 8 19 22 35
2 4 17 18 34 46
2 5 6 32 33 46
2 5 11 13 24 31
2 6 12 19 39 49
2 7 14 29 44 45
2 7 15 23 36 37
2 8 16 18 20 24
2 9 10 24 38 43
2 9 12 22 23 31
2 10 16 26 44 47
2 10 17 28 29 37
2 13 26 27 33 40
2 18 27 42 45 48
2 20 30 35 36 47
2 21 26 28 35 41
2 25 32 34 38 42
3 4 5 27 34 37
3 4 8 10 38 45
3 5 22 24 26 47
3 6 7 13 23 49
3 6 21 32 35 43
3 8 43 44 46 48
3 9 16 19 37 39
3 10 12 16 21 29
3 11 33 37 38 44
3 12 24 40 41 42
3 13 17 19 20 48
3 14 15 34 42 43
3 15 18 22 28 36
3 18 23 29 33 41
3 19 26 31 36 49
3 27 30 35 45 46
4 5 6 20 29 45
4 6 23 24 30 43
4 7 9 25 26 46
4 7 18 21 28 33
4 9 17 21 30 41
4 10 15 19 32 47
4 11 12 20 42 43
4 11 26 31 41 48
4 12 15 31 35 40
4 13 16 18 23 32
4 13 24 29 39 40
4 14 16 33 36 38
4 14 27 38 48 49
4 17 30 36 44 49
5 7 11 21 34 36
5 8 9 13 32 48
5 8 17 30 37 39
5 9 23 28 40 43
5 10 14 41 46 49
5 10 15 17 35 42
5 12 18 20 21 47
5 12 36 38 39 48
5 14 18 19 26 44
5 15 25 29 40 44
5 16 19 23 42 45
5 25 33 35 41 43
6 8 15 20 26 39
6 8 16 40 47 49
6 9 15 31 33 48
6 9 22 25 36 42
6 10 11 17 27 37
6 10 18 31 38 46
6 11 15 28 38 45
6 12 14 22 28 48
6 12 30 34 37 47
6 16 17 25 26 34
6 19 23 40 41 44
6 24 27 29 36 41
7 8 11 15 24 47
7 8 28 31 34 40
7 9 10 30 35 39
7 10 20 22 33 37
7 12 24 25 27 38
7 12 39 43 45 46
7 13 22 41 44 47
7 16 19 27 32 43
7 16 30 41 42 48
7 17 19 38 40 42
7 26 29 32 48 49
8 10 14 21 23 42
8 11 23 28 30 49
8 12 27 33 44 46
8 13 20 25 35 36
8 14 32 36 41 45
8 17 21 31 38 41
8 18 26 37 42 43
8 27 29 32 35 47
9 11 12 17 32 44
9 11 16 18 35 49
9 12 23 26 27 36
9 13 18 30 34 45
9 14 17 27 40 47
9 15 20 27 28 44
9 20 38 41 45 47
9 29 37 42 46 49
10 12 13 33 34 49
10 13 28 36 46 48
10 18 24 25 40 48
10 19 21 22 24 27
10 20 28 32 39 41
10 25 30 31 44 45
11 13 14 33 42 47
11 15 19 29 30 33
11 16 20 22 40 46
11 17 18 29 36 43
11 19 21 25 37 48
11 22 27 34 39 41
12 13 17 26 28 45
12 14 15 16 30 32
13 14 22 31 37 43
13 15 16 25 37 41
13 15 18 27 38 39
13 19 29 35 38 46
14 17 23 24 35 39
14 19 20 29 31 34
14 19 25 28 30 46
14 20 26 32 37 40
15 17 21 22 45 49
15 21 24 26 34 46
16 21 31 39 43 44
16 22 34 35 45 48
16 27 28 29 31 42
17 22 23 25 32 33
18 22 30 32 38 40
18 25 31 39 47 49
19 24 28 43 45 47
20 21 25 27 43 49
20 23 34 35 38 44
20 24 30 33 42 49
21 23 37 38 46 47
21 33 36 39 40 45
22 26 29 30 38 43
23 29 34 39 47 48
24 28 32 34 44 49
24 31 32 33 37 45
24 35 36 37 44 48
26 28 33 35 39 42
31 32 36 42 46 47
Good luck,
gARY
http://www.justservices.com/9ukp.html
ga...@justservices.com
I also have, for ref....
1...@99.45%
163@ you guess!
1...@99.49%
Anygood?
gARY
Robert Perkis
Actually it is very good for lottery players whose number
selection skills are roughly 50% when picking 24 numbers.
I find it strange lottery players will accept impossible
odds of getting 6 right in 24 and won't risk 99% odds of
a wheel winning it's guarantee.
Robert Perkis / http://www.lotto-logix.com/wheellinks.html
ga...@justservices.com
And, its not two wheels stuck together....
Right bonus!
gARY