Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 50317	2004-10-17 02:52:00	Lotto Tips	lotto (6285)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
281887	2008-03-19 13:19:00	You may be able to cover a greater range of numbers with a system and a limited budget but you cannot cover more combinations of numbers on an equal or lesser budget. That does not vary. I dont quite get what you are on about ?.......... I can easily 'cover' a greater range of numbers than the standard offerings of lotto 'combo' systems within a MUCH smaller budget....of course however the system is played at $1.20 per group of six numbers .....thats the way it is.....	drcspy (146)
281888	2008-03-20 04:41:00	Consider this scenario: You buy a ticket with the following lines: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 1 2 Yes you have covered every single number and only at a cost of buying 7 lines. But how much would you get paid if the following numbers were drawn: 6 12 18 24 30 36? It is the combinations of numbers that pay the prizes, not the coverage. Exactly how many unique combinations are there? I'd say 40!/34! which is over 2.7 billion - only one combination of numbers is going to pay out the big one. Quick question, out of curiosity : do you think the number sequence 1 2 3 4 5 6 has a greater, lesser or the same chance as winning when compared to a randomly (or otherwise) selected set of 6 numbers? Andrew	andrew93 (249)
281889	2008-03-20 06:25:00	do you think the number sequence 1 2 3 4 5 6 has a greater, lesser or the same chance as winning when compared to a randomly (or otherwise) selected set of 6 numbers? equal of course and the nz lotto system has 3,838,380 possible combinations of six numbers which may be derived from the 40 not 2.7 billion	drcspy (146)
281890	2008-03-20 06:29:00	It is the combinations of numbers that pay the prizes, not the coverage. yes BUT you can 'cover' a preferential combination of numbers (derived from a group such as 8-9-10 or 12 numbers for example) either randomly or else you can get smart and use a system such as the lotto combo or my 'budget' versions which give you SPECIFICLY the correct combinations derived to 'cover' all the necessary groups of 6:8 or 6:9 etc (LOTTO combo) or using my budget method 4:8 or 4:9 which will ensure that you DO get a prize in the event that your 8 or 9 or 10 numbers contains 3+bonus or 4 'straight' winning numbers.....	drcspy (146)
281891	2008-03-20 06:31:00	a random grouping of numbers such as your 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 1 2 has poor 'coverage'....essentially what you have there is a 'lucky dip'	drcspy (146)
281892	2008-03-20 07:29:00	equal of course Pleased to see that! Would you believe some people can't even figure that out? and the nz lotto system has 3,838,380 possible combinations of six numbers which may be derived from the 40 not 2.7 billion My bad - that was the permutation calculation - I even referred to the 3.8m combinations in a previous post. If I am understanding you correctly (for want of a better word) are you saying that you can guarantee a 4-ball winning prize? Surely not - I figure there are 91,390 4-ball combinations in a 40-ball lottery. Or are you saying you can provide good coverage for a limited selection of numbers? How does that differ to the combo ticket already available? That gives the maximum number of combinations for a selection of n numbers. Andrew	andrew93 (249)
281893	2008-03-20 07:56:00	if I am understanding you correctly (for want of a better word) are you saying that you can guarantee a 4-ball winning prize? yes I figure there are 91,390 4-ball combinations in a 40-ball lottery. yes I DID once design a system which would guarantee you a win every time you played ( a 4 ball win as you called it) however this costs about $600 to play and does NOT guarantee a profit ! Or are you saying you can provide good coverage for a limited selection of numbers? yes How does that differ to the combo ticket already available? That gives the maximum number of combinations for a selection of n numbers. The lotto combo system is designed to cover every combination of six numbers which may be derived from any group you want to play (they offer 8-9-10 number combos) MY version (Budget combo) is designed to cover every combination of FOUR numbers which may be derived from any group you want to play (8-9-10-12-14-20) Heres a little quote from my book which I wrote 17 years ago, nearly got published by David Bateman Ltd who were quite interested and instead marketed it myself and sold through adverts in Sunday News etc I sold several hundred of them and have a large number of interesting letters from grateful buyers many of whom have won more than I ever did, I still get enquiries from people now and then who several years after their initial purchase want to konw if i'm still creating systems: Both the Lotto Combo system and the LOTTOLOGIC equivalent systems only require that you have at least 4 winning numbers in your combination in order to win a prize. The Lotto Combo will give you a division one prize in the event you get THE six winning numbers - a LOTTOLOGIC system may not. You would certainly collect many prizes in that instance though. The odds of winning a division one prize are about 300,000/1 against you. Not very good. Therefore LOTTOLOGIC takes this into account by, at the cost of reducing your chances of collecting the "big one" a little more, giving you some ways to play which will still pay out if you have at least four winning-numbers - or three and the "bonus" without having to spend all that extra money. All this ends in a much much cheaper game and thus, the player can play more games with the budget. This can result in getting a better chance of winning than Lotto on-line Combo's can offer.	drcspy (146)
281894	2008-03-20 09:15:00	Ah - I'm with you now. You are aiming for the division 4 prize (with maybe division 5 or a higher division as a bonus) by getting the most coverage of say 4 balls on n numbers. For instance, rather than paying for 28 lines to cover 8 numbers, you could pay for 9 rows and cover all possible 4-ball combinations from the selection of your 8 favourite numbers (or 97% coverage from 8 rows, or even 68% coverage from 4 rows). So essentially you are trying to cover a greater range of numbers, albeit at the lower prize level, for a smaller investment. My previous assertions were based on aiming for the big one. Makes sense. It's a bit like place betting on the horses - better odds but lower dividends. What is your minimum number of game lines to get x% coverage on say 8 numbers? Hmmm - I could probably write a computer programme to optimise that. Cheers Andrew	andrew93 (249)
281895	2008-03-20 09:33:00	depends on the coverage you want....... to guarantee a prize from 8 numbers IF you have at least 4 numbers (or 3+bonus) requires 8 lines of six numbers......... you can of course reduce that even further with interesting results..... if for example you DOUBLE the 8 numbers so you are playing 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8 and split the resulting 16 numbers into three groups of 6: 1-2-3-4-5-6 1-2-3-4-7-8 x-x-5-6-7-8 this results in: 1-2-3-4 1-2-3-5 1-2-3-6 1-2-4-5 1-2-4-6 1-2-5-6 1-3-4-5 1-3-4-6 1-3-5-6 1-4-5-6 2-3-4-5 2-3-4-6 2-3-5-6 2-4-5-6 3-4-5-6 1-2-3-4 1-2-3-7 1-2-3-8 1-2-4-7 1-2-4-8 1-2-7-8 1-3-4-7 1-3-4-8 1-3-7-8 1-4-7-8 2-3-4-7 2-3-4-8 2-3-7-8 2-4-7-8 3-4-7-8 5-6-7-8 the 1-2-3-4 line is repeated twice but otherwise all lines are only represented one time........thus you have covered 30 of the possible 70 combinations of 4:8 numbers AND the INTERESTING part of this is.............although you have only covered slightly less than half of the combinations..........IF you get four or more winning numbers your chances of a win are good......because of the fact that you have played all the 8 numbers twice and in fact the 'x-x' numbers on the last line could be any of the 8 repeated or any other numbers........it's very interesting really what you can do with the 'structure' of different playing strategies....	drcspy (146)
281896	2008-03-20 10:02:00	It's making sense now. I went back and re-read your earlier post of using 8 rows of 6 numbers to cover all possible 4 number combinations from a sample of 8 numbers. My first attempt resulted in 9 rows so I wasn't too far off. I came to the same conclusion that the first 3 or 4 lines provide the most coverage of the 70 combinations on an 4/8 number strategy - the law of diminishing marginal returns is kicking in for the last 4 lines of numbers. I reckon you could get 60% (42 out of 70) coverage of 8 numbers on 3 lines using this scenario: 1-2-3-4-5-6 1-3-4-5-6-8 3-4-5-6-7-8 And you could increase the coverage to 54/70 (77%) by also using this line: 1-2-3-6-7-8 That's right isn't it? Andrew	andrew93 (249)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12