Guaranteed: the winning lottery draw across so many plays

It's trying to be a new kind of Quick Pick generator... (although, "Quick" is highly debatable currently since a player still has to hand write his/her own play slips from it in the existing version) So, anyway, simply a sequential list of all numbers in the game wouldn't be in quick pick style or fashion.

"If you want generated numbers, why not just play the lot of them!?"... or, "I'll play the lot of them!!" that sort of thing.

I suppose if that hasn't been made clear, then I've still got to address that point better on there somewhere, somehow.


Yeah, this isn't specifically about "tampering" with the lottery's stated odds. Well, in a way, you increase your chances slightly merely by playing a bit more than usual. But that's like saying you'll be closer to Mars if you climb that big hill over there. Basically true, (sometimes) but you're not going to get to Mars that way.

In a nutshell, though, I offer a means to put every ball in action, and in Quick Pick fashion.

The suggested plays generated need to be hand transcribed over to play slips just as they appear on screen.

If you do that then all numbers in the winning drawing will appear over the extent of your purchased tickets. (Which, for some players, hasn't maybe happened before) But, having all winning numbers in one single row, though is naturally still a long shot.

In the version I show up front here it is merely that: put money on every ball.

In the link provided on the splash page is a version that allows you to lock favorite numbers into a ticket of their own, the rest of the numbers salted in around that. So, *if* you're convinced a certain bunch of numbers MUST remain associated together, that version helps you do that.

The problem with that version is there is more work for the user to do, and it doesn't have any of the nice lottery specific and familiar pictures to help give some visual impression on what it's all about.

That version IS more versatile, though. Because you can make it match any lottery in existence. But, it's not very appealing looking yet. Nor, will it likely ever be. Because it being able to mimic any lottery prevents me from, in advance, supplying the necessary graphics for YOUR chosen lottery (since I have NO idea what lottery you are going to try and configure until you tell me. Sure, once you tell me I can bring up the picture. But, having its picture there first would be like quantum superposition)

This excel version here, though, I hope to doctor up with a lot of nice graphics, specific to the main lotteries given. You can always "stumble" across the more versatile version after playing around on the familiar stuff first.

So, in short, it's a kind of lottery number generator that produces suggested plays until all numbers or balls in the game are used up.

"What's the point of that!!? I could do the same damn thing by drawing all the numbers out of a hat, or two!!!"

True.

True.

It's a different number generator? Some people put stock into that sort of thing being provided for them via automation? Or they just enjoy another angle on the game being provided automatically?

With regard to pulling numbers out of your... hat... that's true with any other number generator too, though. Right?

How would you suggest I quickly get that across?

I mean, a friend of mine did actually win using this method with a version of Keno he liked to play. It was 20pick Keno, where if out of twenty selections you get NONE of the same twenty from the drawing you win $600.

Since he got many of the numbers correct in the first couple of plays (he had four plays total because eighty total numbers in Keno), so that last, final play had zero numbers correct! Could playing all numbers helped that situation arise? Don't know. But it happened.

no duplicates are generally possible with what I've proposed.

When the plays end "early" because 69 total balls and there are 70 positions on the set of plays, then it picks one of the previous numbers used to fill the card.

Maybe I'm not understanding what you mean by "without duplicating any combinations"

I thought my means pretty well did that?



Currently, having difficulties with hosting not "loosing" my pictures. Very frustrating at the moment. A fix soon!

Hey! That's outstanding and QUITE unique!!

One easy way to accomplish this, one extra time anyway, is to allow a generation of new numbers (F9, refreshes the screen) and compare spot by spot. If duplicate found in an "equal" spot, dump that attempt and generate again. It would automatically stop attempts once it gets through both without finding anything. An automated version of this of course.

Not sure how many simultaneous card comparisons could be handled at one time, though.

EDIT:

I just did two cards, screen shots of them both, and compared position by position. Two plays had the last ball in each be the same number 67.

2,5,15,20,55,67
8,18,21,59,67

Is that really a duplicate? I wouldn't think so. What you're likely wanting to avoid is two entire play selections having all the same numbers... right? If that's correct, the current version pretty well does this already, quite by accident, merely due to utterly voluminous combination possibilities. Try it yourself! Get a screen shot, F9 for a new set, screen shot again... compare visually. Each looks pretty unique.

Have to decide, first, what makes a "card" unique from another card.

(On a different note, I've decided that a bank of plays following the LOTTOtheLot scheme of using up all the balls could just as well be called a "card", since it kind of, sort of looks like a card there on the computer screen).

I'll try and avoid assumptions on this. We're currently talking about a five ball draw. So two out of five is 40 percent.

That's important because the software I'm considering upgrading can produce or reproduce any lottery. Even Keno, with a twenty ball draw.

Two cards on Keno, then would allow up to 8 duplicates on a line between compared cards at the currently identified 40 percent allowance.

Let me know if that still fits with your idea.

Also, come up with a name for your feature. Perhaps "TheLightWorks Option" or who knows, whatever. Trying to give credit where credit is due. At least in some degree agreeable to you.

I need to see it your way. And, unfortunately, I still have questions in order for me to get there, apparently. Is it my "zero-stage" dementia at work causing my confusion? I don't know.

In a sense, these lottery combinations take on a lot of the same characteristics as very large digital numbers.

Each ascending or descending natural number is its own unique value, of course.

Just as "1" is completely unique from "2" in the natural number stream, so too are "100,001" and "100,002" unique and independent.

100,000 ≠ 100,001

Therein we see that in the large natural numbers, repeated digits are used to describe each new and unique additional value. But, repeated values have not happened. Only repeated digits, or repeated "characters" have.

As such, it's well established for a lottery having six uniquely numbered balls drawn from, say, fifty-one balls in total, that the following are each, in themselves, unique and perfectly worth putting money on, or throwing money away on, as they are totally seperate combinations. In some sense each is assigned its own seperate "value":

1-2-3-4-5-6
1-2-3-4-5-7
1-2-3-4-5-8
1-2-3-4-5-9

All of those are different combinations and not in themselves repeats. There ARE numbers repeated, however. But, that wouldn't be the same as buying:

1-2-3-4-5-6
1-2-3-4-5-6
1-2-3-4-5-6
1-2-3-4-5-6

These are completely different situations.

If card one has

1-2-48-49-50-51

And card two has

1-2-44-45-46-47

How does that make you concerned exactly?

I mean, I get it. Make stuff unique as possible. But money isn't being thrown away any worse than usual that I see.


I guess, to me, it's as if you're saying thus:



Confused by your purchasing logic, I am.

100000 and 100001 share 80 percent the character string. So, rather than achieving the 80 percent award once, now you get that same "jackpot" twice; should the winning drawing be 100002, let's say. Having been a lot more unique between cards, would have merely reduced it to only receiving the 80 percent award once.

Now, it seems to me what you're saying is that the whole point of my endeavor was to prevent wasted effort doing those two plays when the actual winning numbers are 123456.

Granted.

But, my original endeavor was to give the user all numbers in the winning drawing, hoping that those winning numbers land on one row; unlikely as that is. But, no matter, all winning numbers appear in a player's card my way.

That's the original point.

No emphasis upon being unique in each play. That happens, but that's merely a consequence of using all balls once.

Changing the specifics of my example doesn't invalidate the point it made, by the way.

A different thing is still a separate thing, enabling you to buy an additional thing.

No. I'm not selling "unique picks"

I'm selling ALL NUMBERS IN THE WINNING DRAWING across so many plays purchased.

(Done so in Quick Pick fashion rather than sequentially)

Uniqueness is an artifact of having bought all balls within a reasonably few number of plays. It wasn't my initial intent, though, that every play be unique. It just sort of can't be helped with this method.

1 and 5 accomplishes that easily. So too does 2 and 3. There is NOTHING cosmically significant about being grouped closely together. A combination is just as likely as any other. 1-2-3-4-5-6 is just as valid as 1-25-33-47-48-51.

Those sorts of first few digits appear frequently too in lottery drawings (the 1 and 5, or 2 and 3. Because there are many more of those than 1-2-3-4-5-6, of which there is only one of those. Thus why that type is almost never seen. Very very few of that type of combination).

I'm not trying to correct you. I want to be certain this is going to do whatever is intended.

My main concern is throwing a lot of code at something to produce a procedure or result that ostensibly is already occurring,... at least until there are ten cards or whatever.

So, really there are two algorithms at work here. Likely equal to each other, but I'll mention them like this: ensuring that all winning lottery numbers appear in a bank of plays bought buy a user, (called a "card"), and doing so avoiding a multitude of repeated numbers, such that the bank of plays, or card, is as small or inexpensive as possible.

You're saying do ALL of that, but over as many cards as possible?

Could halt the process once enough cards creates the unwanted situation...

Or, try and track and dump "unacceptable" additional cards.

Seems the so called pipedream of any of this ending up "inexpensive" is going to be even less likely than initially mentioned.

So, how does this sound:

As part of the usual LOTTOtheLot process, a card is made and sent to the screen. (Wherein a "card" is a group of plays that have used up all the balls in a given lottery as desired)

Somewhere on the screen a brief, but accurate description of what TheLightWorks option is, is displayed. Perhaps, "Additional plays unique from previous"

If the user opts to, the user then can demand "TheLightWorks!"

At this point, the current card is appended to a master array or master table.

An additional card is then produced. But, before sending any of this card to the screen, it is maded into a temporary table of data of its own, and then we can begin a process for comparison between the two tables. (A comparison between a potentially ever-growing master table and a separate additional card table)

In this process, the current row of the master table is temporarily considered to be the master row. This master row is then compared to each row of the additional card.

What is looked for between rows is if at least 40 percent of the numbers therein are duplicates.

If yes, 40 percent or more are duplicated between rows compared, then the additional card table is deleted, and a different additional card table is created. We'll count how many of these deletions occurs. If deletions go beyond a certain point, that creates a kind of fail safe stopping condition.

Start the process over. (Reset the master row to row one in the eventually ever-growing master table, and begin the row by row comparisons again)

Otherwise, the following rows of the additional card table are looked at until the master row has been compared to each and every row of the additional card table.

At that point the master row is advanced to the next row within the master table. And, the comparisons start again for every row of the additional card, etc., until the master row has successfully advanced all the way through the master table unimpeded. Reset the deletions counter back to zero.

Therein, the additional card is proven devoid of having 40 percent duplicate numbers with respect to the rows of the master table.

The additional card is then sent out to the screen as a newly viewable and acceptable card (the screen shall allow scrolling so as to allow access to all previous screen information), and the additional card is then appended to the master table.

And, the user is asked if more of TheLightWorks are desired. (Or, if it's merely a button, the user could click the button again)

If so, you know. Start again.

Obtain TheLightWorks as often as requested or until a reasonable number of deletions of the "additional card" cannot help but occur.