Pick-3 strategy running on 3 different random series

[David_3]

Hello,

I checked Pick-3 group of frequency strategy for 3 distinct random series:
1. My country which has around 3000 real drawings.
2. Missouri which has around 6,300 real drawings.
3. Simulated file, with 150,000 drawings.

For each of the above random series I checked group 300 (2 hot, 3 middle, 5 cold), which yields 8 combinations.

For each of the above random series I found the best parpeluck and skip,
which gave the best results in regards of profit.

Those were the results of my verification:

 
Series       Hits     Win      Play       STD
My            38       21      8,112      5
Missouri      51       22     16,880      2
Simulated    1,166    620    623,736      1

Conclusion:
This strategy which gives excellent results for my own country - 5 STD better that random play,
gave poor results for different random series.

Mr. Ion,

I'll appreciate very much if you can further elaborate this finding.
I don't understand why this strategy behaves different for each random series.
What is your definition for a strategy, should it work for a specific random series only?
Is there any analytical/ mathematical way which explains the above behavior?

Many thanks for your time.
David

[Ion Saliu]

Bravo, mai, Davide3 sau David4!

I can see how passionate u R about the games! Unfortunately, you ain’t passionate enough to PLAY the games! Just ruminating will never do, Super Crocodilule of axiomatic pursuits!

Elaboration — what elaboration? You simply fabricate the results … It’s disgusting conversing with such an individual … Being a child in the conversation makes you a disgusting topic, IF you only want the childish recognition …

[David_3]

Dear Mr. Ion

Don't warry I'll not bother you anymore (this is my last post).

I respect your thoughts and individual, and you can think abount me, what you want,
but for me it makes no sence to play if I don't understand what I'm doing.

I didn't understand what you meant by 'You simply fabricate the results',
perhaps the results I got were received by mistake (some bug in the code or misunderstanding),
or are irrelevant but they are exactly what I got.

Please find the code I run which gave the results. I verified 9 additional simulated files, generated from
your SW, which gave the same results.

You can find all 10 simulated files on the following link:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/40654757/SIM-3_1
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/40654757/SIM-3_2
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/40654757/SIM-3_3
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/40654757/SIM-3_4
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/40654757/SIM-3_5
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/40654757/SIM-3_6
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/40654757/SIM-3_7
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/40654757/SIM-3_8
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/40654757/SIM-3_9
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/40654757/SIM-3_10
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/40654757/log.txt

The log file has all the prints for SIM-3_10, so anyone can track the code.


Code:
lenght = get_in_d3();
fclose(fp1);



start = lenght-PARPELUCK;
stop = 1;

for (loop=start; loop>=stop; loop--)
{
for (i=0; i<10; i++)
{
frequency[i]=0;
freq_sort[i][0]=i;
freq_sort[i][1]=0;
} // end clean up

for(i=0; i {
bit_1[i] = d3_array[loop+i][0]; // MSB Newest
bit_2[i] = d3_array[loop+i][1];
bit_3[i] = d3_array[loop+i][2];

fprintf(fp2, "%d %d %d\n", bit_1[i], bit_2[i], bit_3[i]);

frequency[bit_1[i]] += 1;
frequency[bit_2[i]] += 1;
frequency[bit_3[i]] += 1;
freq_sort[bit_1[i]][1] += 1;
freq_sort[bit_2[i]][1] += 1;
freq_sort[bit_3[i]][1] += 1;
}

fprintf(fp2, "\n");

future_bit_1 = d3_array[loop-1][0];
future_bit_2 = d3_array[loop-1][1];
future_bit_3 = d3_array[loop-1][2];

for (i=0; i<10-1; i++)
{
for (j=i+1; j<10; j++)
{
if (freq_sort[i][1] < freq_sort[j][1])
{
temp = freq_sort[i][1];
freq_sort[i][1] = freq_sort[j][1];
freq_sort[j][1] = temp;
temp = freq_sort[i][0];
freq_sort[i][0] = freq_sort[j][0];
freq_sort[j][0] = temp;
}
} // end for j
}// end for i

fprintf(fp2, "0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9\n");

for (i=0; i<10; i++)
{
fprintf(fp2, "%d ", frequency[i]);
}
fprintf(fp2, "\n\n");


for (i=0; i<10; i++)
{
fprintf(fp2, "%d ", freq_sort[i][0]);
}
fprintf(fp2, "\n");

for (i=0; i<10; i++)
{
fprintf(fp2, "%d ", freq_sort[i][1]);
}
fprintf(fp2, "\n\n");

group_1[0] = freq_sort[0][0]; // High freq
group_1[1] = freq_sort[1][0]; // High freq
group_2[0] = freq_sort[2][0]; // Middle freq
group_2[1] = freq_sort[3][0]; // Middle freq
group_2[2] = freq_sort[4][0]; // Middle freq
group_3[0] = freq_sort[5][0]; // Low freq
group_3[1] = freq_sort[6][0]; // Low freq
group_3[2] = freq_sort[7][0]; // Low freq
group_3[3] = freq_sort[8][0]; // Low freq
group_3[4] = freq_sort[9][0]; // Low freq


fprintf(fp2, "%d %d\n\n", group_1[0], group_1[1]);

skip++;

for(i=0; i<8; i++)
{
comb_play[i] = COMB_300(i,group_1[0],group_1[1]);

fprintf(fp2, "%d ", comb_play[i]);

if (comb_play[i] == 100*future_bit_1 + 10*future_bit_2 + future_bit_3)
{
hit = 1;
hit_cnt++;
}
}


if (hit == 1)
{
fprintf(fp2, "\n\t\t\t\tHIT\t%d\t%d\n\n", loop, skip);
}


fprintf(fp2, "\n\n");

fprintf(fp2, "%d %d %d\n\n", future_bit_1, future_bit_2, future_bit_3);


if ( (skip >= SKIP) )
{
play += 8;
fprintf(fp4, "%d\t%d\t%d\t%d\n", loop, skip, hit, profit);

if (hit == 1)
{
win = 1;
win_cnt++;
profit += 500 - 8;
fprintf(fp2, "\t\t\t\tWIN\t%d\t%d\n\n", loop, skip);
}
else
{
profit -= 8;
}
}

if (hit == 1)
skip = 0;

hit = 0;
} // end loop == stop

[Ion Saliu]

Sorry, bud! I am in a bad mood sometimes! Like I have been this week, with toothaches that made me feel like in hell …

Well, this is one case when people want just to talk … and then they feel offended if nobody responds. Honestly, your post made no sense to me. It was just something to start a discussion…

Links to random outcomes don’t have much validity. People should have access to the random generators, first and foremost. It is about Trust but verify! — that requirement is not offending …

Besides, what’s the purpose of playing 75,000 pick-3 random sets? A lottery strategy means playing the lottery SELECTIVELY. If one plays thousands of lottery drawings without a strategy, playing draw by draw at the same cost — LOSS is the only result. Although, the normal probability rule gives, sometimes, wins within one standard deviation.

Again … sorry if I confused you for another Max (1, I guess). He is one of my googoos from my days in rec.gambling.lottery. Some of them will never stop … including bogus searches only to overload my website …

[PROACTIVE189]

Ion, you still have not stated to me whether you were going to give me a access to Bright 3 software that I purchased about 5 years ago via PayPal. A little over a year ago, I purchased your probability book.

[Ion Saliu]

I implemented paid membership in May 2007. It was called YEARLY MEMBERSHIP. It was clearly stated in the Terms of Service that the membership had to be renewed on a yearly basis. The membership system sent a renewal reminder a few days before the expiration date. Every honest member understood the terms; some renewed, others declined. The system would periodically remove expired memberships. But no honest user would pretend they didn’t understand that the membership was valid ONE YEAR ONLY.

In 2009, I changed the plan to PERMANENT MEMBERSHIP. It is still in that format. A member pays a one-time fee which does NOT require renewal. For members with an active YEARLY MEMBERSHIP I offered a fair transition: Just $10 to upgrade to PERMANENT MEMBERSHIP. Some upgraded, others declined. But very few crooks pretend they have PERMANENT MEMBERSHIP when, in fact, they only paid for YEARLY MEMBERSHIP.

PROACTIVE189, if you upgraded from YEARLY MEMBERSHIP to PERMANENT MEMBERSHIP, email me your username and the email you registered with. If valid, I will activate your membership ASAP. I will also upgrade you to BJODDS for free.

Otherwise, you will be totally banned from accessing SALIU.COM, including the forums.

Case closed.

Ion Saliu
Administrator