Here is a 50 draw Pick 3 history sample analyzed by digits: - Digit: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Digit Count: 18 14 14 13 14 18 13 16 12 17
Double: 00 11 22 33 44 55 66 77 88 99 Double Count: 2 1 3 2 1 2 1 2 1 5
A quick perusal shows that a high relative digit count does not mean consistently a high double count. The highest digit count produced just the average double count.
Let's look at the doubles. The 50 draw sample I am using here has an unusually high number of Doubles - 38% instead of the expected 27%. Double: 00 11 22 33 44 55 66 77 88 99 1st 10 Draws: - - 1 - - - - - - - 2nd 10 Draws: 1 - - - - - 1 1 - - 3rd 10 Draws: - - - 1 - - - 1 - 1 4th 10 Draws: - 1 1 - - 1 - - - 3 5th 10 Draws: 1 - 1 1 1 1 1 - 1 1
The 5th group has an unusually high number of Doubles - 70% instead of the expected 27%. The question you should ask yourself is, "What can I see in this unusual but actual (Texas) example that I can use again?"
I am interested to see the interpretations from this. Any inference should be treated with caution because of the very high incidence of Doubles in the last group. Is it no Double after 40 draws is a good bet for the next 10 draws? At State payouts this would mean for your selected Double forking out 10 x 10 x 0.50 = $50 for a possible win of $80 or at http://www.5Dimes.com/index.cfm?LID=2589 target=" target=_blank _blank??>5 Dimes 10 x 10 x 0.25 = $20 for a possible win of $150. But hey, haven't we gone from digit analysis to considering the whole numbers, occurrence and absence?
Regards Colin
-------------
*Lotto Draws have no relationship to one another; the integers serve just as identifiers. Any prediction calculation on one history of draws for a same type game is just as irrelevant as another.
* |