Active Topics Memberlist Search Help  
Register Login 
History Methods  
LottoPoster Forums : NUMBER SETS TO PLAY FROM DIFFERENT METHODS : History Methods 
Topic: DECEPTIVE LOTTO WHEEL CLAIMS BY PROF ILIYA BLUSKOV  
Author  Message 
Colin F
Lotto Systems Tester Creator & Analyst To dream the impossible dream ... Joined: September 30 2004 Location: Australia Online Status: Offline Posts: 678 
Topic: DECEPTIVE LOTTO WHEEL CLAIMS BY PROF ILIYA BLUSKOV Posted: January 08 2014 at 6:11pm 
The claims by Professor Iliya Bluskov that he has "the best lottery systems" in a booklet titled "The Ultimate Book On Lotto Systems" are proved wrong in this article and in a table that compares many Partial Pool Covers with my Full Pool Partial Covers for the Pick 6, Pool 49 Lotto game where the 
A Lotto System (Cover or Wheel) is defined by the number (C) of Plays, Lines, Picks or Blocks) of a specified size that GUARANTEE for the Pool of integers used that a Match of at least 1 exists between a specified set of the Combinations from the Pool and a specified subset of those Combinations. eg 1 C(49,6,3,6,1)=163 means for a Pool of 49 and a Pick of 6 a minimum of 163 lines is needed to guarantee a Match of 3 integers at least 1 time for all the combinations of 6 integers (Hits) from the Pool. eg 2 C(22,6,3,3,1)=77 means for a Pool of 22 and a Pick of 6 an absolute minimum of 77 lines (Steiner System  can't be done in less lines) is needed to guarantee a Match of 3 integers exactly 1 time for all the combinations of 3 integers, Hits (in this case 1,540) from the Pool . This can also be written as C(22,6,3,4,4)=77 or C(22,6,3,5,10)=77 or C(22,6,3,6,20)=77. If you prefer let's look at the definition by Iliya Bluskov, January 30, 1996 which can be confirmed here:  Lottery System Definition by Iliya Bluskov "A system S of ksubsets(tickets) of an nset V={1,2,...,n} is called an (n,k,p,t)  lottery system (wheel) if for every psubset P of V one can find a ksubset (ticket) L of S such that L and P have at least t numbers in common." THE GUARANTEE IS "... one can find ..." THE "IF" IN THAT DEFINITION REFERS TO WHETHER IT QUALIFIES AS A COVER OR WHEEL BY HAVING A MATCH; BY HIS OWN DEFINITION IT CANNOT BE DESCRIBED AS A SYSTEM, WHEEL OR COVER WHEN THERE IS NO MATCH BETWEEN A TICKET OR LINE AND THE SUBSET SPECIFIED, WHICH IS THE CASE FOR PARTIAL POOL COVERS. THERE IS NO CONDITION TO THAT GUARANTEE; THE PRIZE IS OBTAINED IRRESPECTIVE OF THE DRAW RESULT. LET ME EMPHASIZE THAT  THE GUARANTEE APPLIES NO MATTER WHAT THE DRAW RESULT. YOU HAVE THE GUARANTEE BEFORE THE DRAW RESULT IS KNOWN. THE "GUARANTEE" THAT BLUSKOV WRITES ABOUT IS NOT A GUARANTEE AT ALL FOR THE GAME YOU ARE PLAYING BECAUSE IT MAYBE APPLIES AFTER THE DRAW. IT'S A CONARTIST TRICK. With only a few exceptions (where the Pool is one to three integers more, the Cover is a Steiner System and the prize guarantee is of a lesser value) the guarantee does not carry over to a Lotto game that has more integers iin the Pool than there are in the Pool of integers used in the Wheel or Cover. Iliya Bluskov compares his Covers or Wheels to those of Gail Howard and for the given Pool and real guarantee justifies them being better by a lesser number of lines thus saving money. That being said there is little doubt that the cost or monetary return is of prime importance as in Percentage Return or Yield and on this basis they fail miserably. The writings of Iliya Bluskov are full of contradictions and sneaky inferences most unbecoming of a Professor in Mathematics. Consider the classic Pick 6, Pool 49 Lotto game and the best structure of 20 lines to play in that game. Dr Bluskov or his speil merchants claim you will do better by playing 20 lines that only use 10 of the 49 available integers and which has a guarantee of a 4 match if you were playing a 6/10 Lotto game. But you are not  you are playing a 6/49 game and it can be shown by both analysis of all the 13,983,816 possibilities and trials that you will do better with 20 lines of Random Selections or a Partial Cover that uses all the 49 integers, does not have the paying subsets repeated and has coverage maximized. From January, 1997 serious Lotto Systems enthusiasts produced lists for the best Partial Covers including this one started by Uenal Mutlu. Partial Cover list for 6/49 Lotto game. A current list is maintained by John Rawson, the author of Covermaster and is available here. This list I am not entirely in agreement with as it has duplicate CombThrees from 74 Combinations on whereas my Cover C(49,6,3,6,1)=365 is both progressive and has no duplicate CombThrees and consequently a natural distribution. The Cover C(49,6,3,6,1)=163 has a very distorted distribution with the single match 3 win exceeding the 2 x match 3 and the 3 x match 3. See Comparison of Lotto Yields for Various Methods and Combinations Played in Pick 6, Pool 49 Lotto and Coverage Alone Does Not Give The Best LottoYield. Partial Covers have a scientific basis and contrast strongly with the Partial Pool Covers or Wheels used by predictionists and occultists who having convinced themselves that they have narrowed down the Pool for the next draw justify their use. Having grown up with this in his native Bulgaria, Bluskov remains in a time warp pandering to such wierdos and using words such as "guess" when he really means "predict" and in the epitome of duplicity using guarantee when conditional guarantee should be emphasized. To have a REAL GUARANTEE of a match4 prize for all the 211,876 possible CombFours in a 6/49 Lotto game you would need to play 18,674 lines. Perhaps you are beginning to appreciate the extent of the deception and conartistry of Dr Iliya Bluskov. The coverage of the Lotto Wheel with a 4if4 guarantee in a 6/10 Lotto game for all Prize groups when applied to the 6/49 Lotto game is only 9%, whereas the first 20 Random Selections or draws in the UK Lotto has a Coverage of 31% (and for any other consecutive 20 lines within 1%) and my Partial Cover 34%. HOW CAN A PROFESSOR IN MATHEMATICS ADVOCATE THAT IT IS BETTER TO PLAY THE POOL 10 WHEEL WHERE YOU HAVE: A 91% CHANCE OF GETTING NOTHING COMPARED TO THE RANDOM SELECTIONS SAMPLE WITH ONLY A 69% OR MY PARTIAL COVER WITH ONLY 66%. Surely if you know this to be the case, as the Professor does, you are being both disingenuous and deceptive to advocate the use of number sets that produce inferior results. Here is a meaningful guarantee  Play a set of Random Selections or better still my Partial Cover lines, using the full Pool for any real Lotto Game and you will have a better Percentage Return or Yield than an equivalent number of lines Cover or Wheel using less than the Pool applicable to that Lotto game. As I have repeatedly pointed out  Coverage alone does not determine the best PERCENTAGE RETURN or YIELD for a given Lotto play set or design. The repetition of paying subsets significantly effects the yield. Each Pick 6 Line has 20 CombThrees, 15 CombFours and 6 CombFives. So, for 20 lines we should optimally have 400 CombThrees, 300 CombThrees and 120 CombFives. Looking at the repetition tables below we see for the Cover we have less than half the Combthrees distinct ie120 and less than three quarters of the CombFours distinct ie 210. This means it will be harder and longer to get a match Three or Match Four and multiple prizes just don't balance it out in the short term. Fig 1 Repetition of subsets C(10,6,4,4)=20 Fig 2 Repetition of subsets first 20 draws UK Lotto Table of Wins For a given Lotto game and a specific Cover or Wheel a table of wins can be calculated. In Australia the Lotto operator provides them for System entries or Full Wheels. The important point is that if playing a System 8 or Full Wheel 8 the Prize Table is not given for a hypothetical 6/8 Lotto game but for the actual Lotto game, say, 6/45. See Tatts Lotto Systems Prize Table in Australia To do otherwise would be considered to be misinformation and grossly deceptive. If playing in a 6/49 Lotto game using the C(10,6,4,4)=20 Cover or Wheel why does Professor Iliya Bluskov consider a table of wins for a 6/10 Lotto game rather than a 6/49 Lotto game appropriate other than to ostensibly deceive? I have my own Lotto Analyzer program, written by myself, which can give me the complete breakdown of prize groups but for the purpose of comparison and possible confirmation by yourself let's use John Rawson's free Covermaster. Below is the real prize table in a 6/49 Lotto game when considering all possible combinations of 6 integers from a Pool of 49. Fig 3 Real Prize Table for Cover C(10,6,4,4)=20 in 6/49 Lotto game. Fig 4 Prize Table for Cover C(10,6,4,4)=20 in a hypothetical 6/10 Lotto Game which is non applicable to a 6/49 Lotto Game. Comparing the two tables we see in Table 4 that for the possible 210 combinations of 6 integers (10c6) there are 10 that give 15 match 4's with 2 match 3's (4.76%) and 60 that give 2 match 5's with 9 match 4's and 8 match 3's (28.57%). However, when examined in Table 3 where there are 13,983,816 combinations of 6 integers for the same prize groups we have respectively percentages of 0.00007% ie a lot greater improbability than that of winning 1st prize (0.00014) and 0.00043%. Fig 5 Prize Table for first 20 Draws or Random Selections in UK 6/49 Lotto. Fig 6 Prize Table for 20 Lines Partial Cover 6/49 Lotto Game with Unique Comb Threes and Coverage maximized. Applying Analysis C(10,6,4,4)=20 in 6/49 Lotto Game Using Fig 3 we can apply proportionality and get a good indication of expected wins for 1000 plays or 50 draws. Move the decimal point to the right in the % column to get the probability and then multiply by the simulated draws required ie 1000/20=50. No Wins 0.90973 x 50 45.48 45 3 Match x 3 0.05881 x 50 2.94 3 3 Match x 4 0.01307 x 50 0.65 1 3 Match x 5 0.00653 x 50 0.33 4 Match x 1 + 3 Match x 8 0.00397 x 50 0.20 1 4 Match x 1 + 3 Match x 9 0.00318 x 50 0.16 4 Match x 2 + 3 Match x 7 0.00318 x 50 0.16 _____ 50 Using the current ticket cost of £2 per line and payouts of £25 for a match 3 and £100 for a match 4 we have a sum of 3x75 + 1x100 + 1x100 = 425 to give a Yield of 21.25%. For a partial cover Fig 6 with a coverage of some 34% with no repeat Comb Threes and Coverage maximized the expected wins for 1000 plays or 50 draws are:  No Wins 0.65618 32.80 33 3 Match x 1 0.28616 14.31 15 3 Match x 2 0.02795 1.40 1 3 Match x 3 0.00144 0.07 4 Match x 1 0.01937 0.97 1 __ 50 Using the same costs and payouts the sum is 15x25 + 1x50 + 1x100 = 525 to give a Percentage Return or Yield of 26.25% A difference of 5% as calculated is significant. I have prepared a table that compares the yield obtained for a given number of lines in a 6/49 Lotto game which confirms what I am saying. This table has been prepared by calculating the coverage of a given set of numbers of the 13,983,816 possibilities and grouping the prize categories. The table shows that the Full Pool partial covers I advocate using and which are available at LottoToWin are superior to partial Pool covers. Below is a flyer received in my mailbox in November 2012 which prompted me to start a thread in the newsgroup rec.gambling.lottery where eventually Dr Bluskov responded in January 2014. Unfortunately, Dr Bluskov didn't respond very well eventually resorting to using nazi terminology as he could not come up with any contra meaningful arguements. For example where I multiply the probability for the various prize groups by the number of draws required to arrive at a simplified prize list with total prize group wins equal to the number of draws he would not accept this even after it was pointed out to him that it correlated with trial runs against random selections or a Lotto draw history. Dr Buskov proposed that the only meaningful data would be after multiplying the probability for each prize group by say close to 14,000,000 to achieve what? This line was still maintained after I showed the Steiner C(22,6,3,3)=77 in a hypothetical 6/22 Lotto game gave exactly the same quantities of match 3's, match 4's and match 5's as per probability formula with that of the totals for each prize groups after mutiplying by 13. Dr Buskov also accused me of trying to destroy his academic reputation. All I have done is made other academics aware of what he has been up to and even ordinary everyday people with common sense and some ability in critical thinking can see through the deceptions. Dr Bluskov destroyed whatever part of his academic reputation that has suffered by his own actions. Please read also PRIZES IN LOTTO ILIYA BLUSKOV v COLIN FAIRBROTHER Colin Fairbrother 

IP Logged  
Forum Jump 
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum 