Quote:You are correct; however, when the experiments I did were performed, over and over again I got the result that the forecast number would either be spot on or slightly off (+/-).  This held true regardless of how the numbers were generated for the lottery.  The only way I could think to explain it was that multiple probability lines that were almost identical resulted in those close number combinations.  Since the numbers were usually +1, 0 or -1 to what was drawn when I used a valid predictive system and used it properly, I was clearly defying chance, but still not able to exactly pin down what numbers were coming up.  Why would that be, when the same predictive system, in several cases, was able to pin down situations and circumstances exactly in other applications?  The only thing I could think of was that each possible combination represented a possibility line, and that as we approached the drawing (and went through the drawing), millions or billions of variables ranging from extremely minor to major were resulting in the specifics that resulted in that combination being chosen, and that made sense when you try to play the whole thing in reverse.  In reverse, you can slow things down and see (with balls) the direct causative events more clearly.  The issue is with the number of variables needing to be considered, and recognizing what variables actually have an influence, what that influence is, and keeping pace with the speed of action.  Run that drawing in reverse in slow motion (or even in slow motion forwards) and you can see with certainty what is doing what, as long as you can recognize it as a variable of influence.  So it isn't random, and it is too much data, speed and complexity for us to accurately model or predict with currently available tools.

(08-08-2019, 11:53 AM)HearDontListen Wrote:

Quote:You are correct; however, when the experiments I did were performed, over and over again I got the result that the forecast number would either be spot on or slightly off (+/-).  This held true regardless of how the numbers were generated for the lottery.  The only way I could think to explain it was that multiple probability lines that were almost identical resulted in those close number combinations.  Since the numbers were usually +1, 0 or -1 to what was drawn when I used a valid predictive system and used it properly, I was clearly defying chance, but still not able to exactly pin down what numbers were coming up.  Why would that be, when the same predictive system, in several cases, was able to pin down situations and circumstances exactly in other applications?  The only thing I could think of was that each possible combination represented a possibility line, and that as we approached the drawing (and went through the drawing), millions or billions of variables ranging from extremely minor to major were resulting in the specifics that resulted in that combination being chosen, and that made sense when you try to play the whole thing in reverse.  In reverse, you can slow things down and see (with balls) the direct causative events more clearly.  The issue is with the number of variables needing to be considered, and recognizing what variables actually have an influence, what that influence is, and keeping pace with the speed of action.  Run that drawing in reverse in slow motion (or even in slow motion forwards) and you can see with certainty what is doing what, as long as you can recognize it as a variable of influence.  So it isn't random, and it is too much data, speed and complexity for us to accurately model or predict with currently available tools.

It's interesting that you always tried to play as close as possible to the drawing in order to have less variables come into play.  Do you think it makes a difference if you pick the numbers vs letting the machine pick them for you?  I was kind of thinking by letting the machine pick it, you are putting it in the hands of the universe, but maybe you have to "will it" a bit more.

(08-08-2019, 01:01 PM)Shannon Wrote:

(08-08-2019, 11:53 AM)HearDontListen Wrote:

Quote:You are correct; however, when the experiments I did were performed, over and over again I got the result that the forecast number would eithe
r be spot on or slightly off (+/-).  This held true regardless of how the numbers were generated for the lottery.  The only way I could think to explain it was that multiple probability lines that were almost identical resulted in those close number combinations.  Since the numbers were usually +1, 0 or -1 to what was drawn when I used a valid predictive system and used it properly, I was clearly defying chance, but still not able to exactly pin down what numbers were coming up.  Why would that be, when the same predictive system, in several cases, was able to pin down situations and circumstances exactly in other applications?  The only thing I could think of was that each possible combination represented a possibility line, and that as we approached the drawing (and went through the drawing), millions or billions of variables ranging from extremely minor to major were resulting in the specifics that resulted in that combination being chosen, and that made sense when you try to play the whole thing in reverse.  In reverse, you can slow things down and see (with balls) the direct causative events more clearly.  The issue is with the number of variables needing to be considered, and recognizing what variables actually have an influence, what that influence is, and keeping pace with the speed of action.  Run that drawing in reverse in slow motion (or even in slow motion forwards) and you can see with certainty what is doing what, as long as you can recognize it as a variable of influence.  So it isn't random, and it is too much data, speed and complexity for us to accurately model or predict with currently available tools.

It's interesting that you always tried to play as close as possible to the drawing in order to have less variables come into play.  Do you think it makes a difference if you pick the numbers vs letting the machine pick them for you?  I was kind of thinking by letting the machine pick it, you are putting it in the hands of the universe, but maybe you have to "will it" a bit more.

Playing quick picks has it's advantages and its disadvantages.  So does picking your own numbers.  If you try to match a set of "random numbers" to a set of "random numbers, then your odds will definitely be what the statisticians say they are.  If you pick your own numbers, it is possible to actually degrade your chances of winning the jackpot and it is possible to increase them, too.  Picking numbers based on a bad method will degrade it.  

I learned this when I was 21 and had a guy hire me to write a lotto prediction program based on his ideas for him.  His ideas, upon closer inspection, consistently ruled out 98% of the actual winning history for that game, and improved the chances of hitting 0, 1, 2 and 3 out of 6.  When I adjusted it to be what it should have been (my own version of the program), my rule set resulted in a decrease in 0/6, and an increase in everything else.  The peak was at 1/6, where random chance would have it at 0/6.  The weekly tests revealed that I was creating a result pool that was as likely to have jackpot winners in it as if I was playing 22-23x the number of bets I was creating for testing.  In other words, by playing according to what the game's history showed was actually coming up consistently and using that as my boundaries, I was able to bet $1 and have the odds of winning the jackpot something be the same as if I bet $23.  Interestingly, that did not seem to hold true for lower levels of prize tiers, where I would have had 3/6 almost every time I played if it did.  To consistently get a 3/6 on a 6/53 game (22.9 million to 1 for the jackpot), calculated odds are a little over 70:1 for 3/6 on that game.  I was consistently getting 3/6 out of 10 to 15 combinations at a time.

So picking your numbers with a "system" that doesn't do what the natural game results are doing will degrade your odds of a jackpot, and using what the game is doing and rejecting what it doesn't do can potentially improve your odds.  Calculated odds for the game, of course, always stay the same.

(08-08-2019, 03:22 PM)ncbeareatingman Wrote:

(08-08-2019, 01:01 PM)Shannon Wrote:

(08-08-2019, 11:53 AM)HearDontListen Wrote:

Quote:You are correct; however, when the experiments I did were performed, over and over again I got the result that the forecast number would eithe
r be spot on or slightly off (+/-).  This held true regardless of how the numbers were generated for the lottery.  The only way I could think to explain it was that multiple probability lines that were almost identical resulted in those close number combinations.  Since the numbers were usually +1, 0 or -1 to what was drawn when I used a valid predictive system and used it properly, I was clearly defying chance, but still not able to exactly pin down what numbers were coming up.  Why would that be, when the same predictive system, in several cases, was able to pin down situations and circumstances exactly in other applications?  The only thing I could think of was that each possible combination represented a possibility line, and that as we approached the drawing (and went through the drawing), millions or billions of variables ranging from extremely minor to major were resulting in the specifics that resulted in that combination being chosen, and that made sense when you try to play the whole thing in reverse.  In reverse, you can slow things down and see (with balls) the direct causative events more clearly.  The issue is with the number of variables needing to be considered, and recognizing what variables actually have an influence, what that influence is, and keeping pace with the speed of action.  Run that drawing in reverse in slow motion (or even in slow motion forwards) and you can see with certainty what is doing what, as long as you can recognize it as a variable of influence.  So it isn't random, and it is too much data, speed and complexity for us to accurately model or predict with currently available tools.

It's interesting that you always tried to play as close as possible to the drawing in order to have less variables come into play.  Do you think it makes a difference if you pick the numbers vs letting the machine pick them for you?  I was kind of thinking by letting the machine pick it, you are putting it in the hands of the universe, but maybe you have to "will it" a bit more.

Playing quick picks has it's advantages and its disadvantages.  So does picking your own numbers.  If you try to match a set of "random numbers" to a set of "random numbers, then your odds will definitely be what the statisticians say they are.  If you pick your own numbers, it is possible to actually degrade your chances of winning the jackpot and it is possible to increase them, too.  Picking numbers based on a bad method will degrade it.  

I learned this when I was 21 and had a guy hire me to write a lotto prediction program based on his ideas for him.  His ideas, upon closer inspection, consistently ruled out 98% of the actual winning history for that game, and improved the chances of hitting 0, 1, 2 and 3 out of 6.  When I adjusted it to be what it should have been (my own version of the program), my rule set resulted in a decrease in 0/6, and an increase in everything else.  The peak was at 1/6, where random chance would have it at 0/6.  The weekly tests revealed that I was creating a result pool that was as likely to have jackpot winners in it as if I was playing 22-23x the number of bets I was creating for testing.  In other words, by playing according to what the game's history showed was actually coming up consistently and using that as my boundaries, I was able to bet $1 and have the odds of winning the jackpot something be the same as if I bet $23.  Interestingly, that did not seem to hold true for lower levels of prize tiers, where I would have had 3/6 almost every time I played if it did.  To consistently get a 3/6 on a 6/53 game (22.9 million to 1 for the jackpot), calculated odds are a little over 70:1 for 3/6 on that game.  I was consistently getting 3/6 out of 10 to 15 combinations at a time.

So picking your numbers with a "system" that doesn't do what the natural game results are doing will degrade your odds of a jackpot, and using what the game is doing and rejecting what it doesn't do can potentially improve your odds.  Calculated odds for the game, of course, always stay the same.

Shannon are you still considering that Lottery Subliminal....as a real possibility...especially with all the experiences & feedback that people are having  & giving with UMS???

(08-09-2019, 07:09 AM)Shannon Wrote:

(08-08-2019, 03:22 PM)ncbeareatingman Wrote:

(08-08-2019, 01:01 PM)Shannon Wrote:

(08-08-2019, 11:53 AM)HearDontListen Wrote:

Quote:You are correct; however, when the experiments I did were performed, over and over again I got the result that the forecast number would eithe
r be spot on or slightly off (+/-).  This held true regardless of how the numbers were generated for the lottery.  The only way I could think to explain it was that multiple probability lines that were almost identical resulted in those close number combinations.  Since the numbers were usually +1, 0 or -1 to what was drawn when I used a valid predictive system and used it properly, I was clearly defying chance, but still not able to exactly pin down what numbers were coming up.  Why would that be, when the same predictive system, in several cases, was able to pin down situations and circumstances exactly in other applications?  The only thing I could think of was that each possible combination represented a possibility line, and that as we approached the drawing (and went through the drawing), millions or billions of variables ranging from extremely minor to major were resulting in the specifics that resulted in that combination being chosen, and that made sense when you try to play the whole thing in reverse.  In reverse, you can slow things down and see (with balls) the direct causative events more clearly.  The issue is with the number of variables needing to be considered, and recognizing what variables actually have an influence, what that influence is, and keeping pace with the speed of action.  Run that drawing in reverse in slow motion (or even in slow motion forwards) and you can see with certainty what is doing what, as long as you can recognize it as a variable of influence.  So it isn't random, and it is too much data, speed and complexity for us to accurately model or predict with currently available tools.

It's interesting that you always tried to play as close as possible to the drawing in order to have less variables come into play.  Do you think it makes a difference if you pick the numbers vs letting the machine pick them for you?  I was kind of thinking by letting the machine pick it, you are putting it in the hands of the universe, but maybe you have to "will it" a bit more.

Playing quick picks has it's advantages and its disadvantages.  So does picking your own numbers.  If you try to match a set of "random numbers" to a set of "random numbers, then your odds will definitely be what the statisticians say they are.  If you pick your own numbers, it is possible to actually degrade your chances of winning the jackpot and it is possible to increase them, too.  Picking numbers based on a bad method will degrade it.  

I learned this when I was 21 and had a guy hire me to write a lotto prediction program based on his ideas for him.  His ideas, upon closer inspection, consistently ruled out 98% of the actual winning history for that game, and improved the chances of hitting 0, 1, 2 and 3 out of 6.  When I adjusted it to be what it should have been (my own version of the program), my rule set resulted in a decrease in 0/6, and an increase in everything else.  The peak was at 1/6, where random chance would have it at 0/6.  The weekly tests revealed that I was creating a result pool that was as likely to have jackpot winners in it as if I was playing 22-23x the number of bets I was creating for testing.  In other words, by playing according to what the game's history showed was actually coming up consistently and using that as my boundaries, I was able to bet $1 and have the odds of winning the jackpot something be the same as if I bet $23.  Interestingly, that did not seem to hold true for lower levels of prize tiers, where I would have had 3/6 almost every time I played if it did.  To consistently get a 3/6 on a 6/53 game (22.9 million to 1 for the jackpot), calculated odds are a little over 70:1 for 3/6 on that game.  I was consistently getting 3/6 out of 10 to 15 combinations at a time.

So picking your numbers with a "system" that doesn't do what the natural game results are doing will degrade your odds of a jackpot, and using what the game is doing and rejecting what it doesn't do can potentially improve your odds.  Calculated odds for the game, of course, always stay the same.

Shannon are you still considering that Lottery Subliminal....as a real possibility...especially with all the experiences & feedback that people are having  & giving with UMS???

Still have to work out a few things first.

(08-09-2019, 07:24 AM)ncbeareatingman Wrote:

(08-09-2019, 07:09 AM)Shannon Wrote:

(08-08-2019, 03:22 PM)ncbeareatingman Wrote:

(08-08-2019, 01:01 PM)Shannon Wrote:

(08-08-2019, 11:53 AM)HearDontListen Wrote: It's interesting that you always tried to play as close as possible to the drawing in order to have less variables come into play.  Do you think it makes a difference if you pick the numbers vs letting the machine pick them for you?  I was kind of thinking by letting the machine pick it, you are putting it in the hands of the universe, but maybe you have to "will it" a bit more.

Playing quick picks has it's advantages and its disadvantages.  So does picking your own numbers.  If you try to match a set of "random numbers" to a set of "random numbers, then your odds will definitely be what the statisticians say they are.  If you pick your own numbers, it is possible to actually degrade your chances of winning the jackpot and it is possible to increase them, too.  Picking numbers based on a bad method will degrade it.  

I learned this when I was 21 and had a guy hire me to write a lotto prediction program based on his ideas for him.  His ideas, upon closer inspection, consistently ruled out 98% of the actual winning history for that game, and improved the chances of hitting 0, 1, 2 and 3 out of 6.  When I adjusted it to be what it should have been (my own version of the program), my rule set resulted in a decrease in 0/6, and an increase in everything else.  The peak was at 1/6, where random chance would have it at 0/6.  The weekly tests revealed that I was creating a result pool that was as likely to have jackpot winners in it as if I was playing 22-23x the number of bets I was creating for testing.  In other words, by playing according to what the game's history showed was actually coming up consistently and using that as my boundaries, I was able to bet $1 and have the odds of winning the jackpot something be the same as if I bet $23.  Interestingly, that did not seem to hold true for lower levels of prize tiers, where I would have had 3/6 almost every time I played if it did.  To consistently get a 3/6 on a 6/53 game (22.9 million to 1 for the jackpot), calculated odds are a little over 70:1 for 3/6 on that game.  I was consistently getting 3/6 out of 10 to 15 combinations at a time.

So picking your numbers with a "system" that doesn't do what the natural game results are doing will degrade your odds of a jackpot, and using what the game is doing and rejecting what it doesn't do can potentially improve your odds.  Calculated odds for the game, of course, always stay the same.

Shannon are you still considering that Lottery Subliminal....as a real possibility...especially with all the experiences & feedback that people are having  & giving with UMS???

Still have to work out a few things first.

 OK,thank for that feedback Shannon.  well hell at least this program is STILL under consideration! good sign! Thank you kindly and now back to our regularly schedueled  journal of HearDontListen !! :-)

Quote:What if you expanded it to a gambling success sub?

(08-09-2019, 10:45 AM)Shannon Wrote:

Quote:What if you expanded it to a gambling success sub?

What if I don't build either because they will encourage stupid people to do stupid things and then blame me?

"Gambler's Luck" was on the drawing board until the models clearly and repeatedly showed me that that was exactly what would happen if I released it.

A lottery program will only be built and released if that is NOT what the models show will happen.  But first I have to get the 4.x branch of USLM to make me happy regardless.

(10-22-2019, 03:01 AM)Darwin Wrote: I went very hard on learning to the end of producing a business, while working. I also began exercising and dieting like a crazyman but then I just burnt outand have been stuck last couple of weeks in recovery. Everyone has been looking at me saying I look really tired. Anyway I saw this tranqualizer and decided to give it a try, I imagine it uses in the moment state shifting so conflicts with UMS and will void my right to return but I don't care, UMS has been a strong motivator and a visible changer so I already had no intention of requesting a refund.  I still won't report on UMS until my business is set up.

I just got done having a big argument and am pretty angry, I've just whacked it on now. Hopefully I can use this along side UMS to smooth out the intensity and anger that it seems to provoke in me.

I'll say that I do feel a bit more chill and focus. my eyes feel like they're widening. I'm going to start using this on an ad hoc basis now.

Shannon, I was considering getting lazer focus and concentration for in the moment use as well- especially at work when I have to get down to it and need to block out external noise, would this be inadvisable given my use of UMS as well?