Where is Report Post on mobile? We've made a slight change, see here
Have your say on the future of the 'Save Draft' feature in this poll
MODs please see this information notice in the mod's forum. Thanks!
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards

# EuroMillion - MainBalls - Selections

• Was just wondering as there's nothing to differentiate one ball over another.

Whereas in football or tennis you can weigh in factors like team fitness, or weather etc, but in this, unless there was some reason a 20 ball is more likely to appear than a 5 ball (perhaps slight weighting difference?) I don't see how stats can be used to predict?

• mrcheez wrote: »
Was just wondering as there's nothing to differentiate one ball over another.

Whereas in football or tennis you can weigh in factors like team fitness, or weather etc, but in this, unless there was some reason a 20 ball is more likely to appear than a 5 ball (perhaps slight weighting difference?) I don't see how stats can be used to predict?

If there was a code or blueprint to winning money we’d all be rich.

• Dtp1979 wrote: »
If there was a code or blueprint to winning money we’d all be rich.

Isn't that what this thread is trying to do though? Find a pattern?

• mrcheez wrote: »
Isn't that what this thread is trying to do though? Find a pattern?

Pattern(s), yes to an extent - patterns, predictions, forecasts.

Usually have up to 15 variables, e.g. One would be that over the 14yr data set it's more or less an even flatline, thus if there is high variance over the last 2yrs it will likely balance itself over a longer duration.

It's not a get rich quick scheme by any means.
But for anyone who plays the regular lotto(s) this is a much, much better alternative than a lucky dip on those 6 ball jackpots.

• so... you're saying that it IS more likely a certain ball will turn up than another ball over a measured period?

I'm just interested as I would have assumed that nothing is set and it's just as likely 1,2,3,4,5,6 would come up 4 times in a row

• mrcheez wrote: »
so... you're saying that it IS more likely a certain ball will turn up than another ball over a measured period?

I'm just interested as I would have assumed that nothing is set and it's just as likely 1,2,3,4,5,6 would come up 4 times in a row

Generally yes there is equal chance any ball can show up, but if there is any 'possibility' of any advantage (no matter how small 5, 1, 0.5% or so)

e.g. ball 47 was overdue by a significant gap to come out, and it came out on the last week (as suggested).

Just one variable, and not perfect, but is it a better option than blindly picking balls? Why do people even play lotto's of any kind?

Also 'hotpicks' the game type as used here, is the best bang per buck, perhaps of any lotto.

• Didn’t a winning Irish syndicate a few years ago claim they had the ‘formula’ to beat the lotto?

• Dtp1979 wrote: »
Didn’t a winning Irish syndicate a few years ago claim they had the ‘formula’ to beat the lotto?

Guess a syndicate is a type of formula in itself, an en masse group attempt. This is only useful for peak lotto payouts 100m+ on the EM, due to the shareout factor.

A syndicate may also tap into group or mass consciousness, fine for complex problem solving, not ideal for lucky balls unless UriGeller is spearheading it.

For these regular lottos which I avoid, it is near impossible to factor any pattern on 6-balls or 7 (5+2stars) due to the sheer odds.

<5 balls and the odds drop dramatcally, and just 4balls still equals 30k.

Saying that one sure rule is to avoid in reuglar draws is having all <31, and weighting on <12 due to birth dates. Also, if do actually pick 1,2,3,4,5,6 on Sat, it might mean sharing the jackpot with 500 others, so never do that.

• One thing I did notice in the past is that in general if there are 4 odd balls then the other 2 will be even, and vice versa.

I always thought I'd put that into practice one day, but I'd be well under several thousand at this stage

• mrcheez wrote: »
One thing I did notice in the past is that in general if there are 4 odd balls then the other 2 will be even, and vice versa.

That's nice, but somewhat irrelevant pattern, as this thread is only concerned with 5 balls at the most (the clue is in the title - Euromillions main balls).

Ideally 80% of attempts should focus on 2 balls (100 for 1.50), or 3 balls with 1.50 stake gets 1,500 back. Sure the 1m return for 5 balls (no stars) would be nice, but not as easy.

Lets face it if you using hotpicks, instead of regular shop lotto you'd be saving thousands anyway! If you never play any lottos, sure don't bother.

And the payout for 3 balls on the regular (more expensive) E'Mills shop-lotto last Friday? = €11, whoopie doo.

• That's nice, but somewhat irrelevant pattern, as this thread is only concerned with 5 balls at the most (the clue is in the title - Euromillions main balls).

ah right, I don't play lotto so no idea on the number though I'm assuming the pattern still holds and you would find 3 odd 2 even (and vice versa) is quite common though.

• mrcheez wrote: »
ah right, I don't play lotto so no idea on the number though I'm assuming the pattern still holds and you would find 3 odd 2 even (and vice versa) is quite common though.

Probably, hadn't really considered it, might even be worth adding to the 12-15 existing varables.

'Range' is likely stronger you nearly always see a low ball, mid and high among the 5 main balls. Total value count is another to use as an average.

Another chap said using one ball from the previous draw is an advantage. Must say this has been the case of late, from memory all the recent draws do feature one or more repeaters.

Again all this defines probability logic, and somewhat non-scientific.
But all that matters is results, results and results (irrespective of method).

• Slight correct to earlier assumption that balls will flatline over extended period,
if anything there is stronger deviation over 14yrs.

And this is strangley refected or repeated in the just the last 2yrs (14%) of the total.
One reason I often call 50 (was in last draw) the fallback safebet bullseye due to it's expected elasticity.

• Finally remembered to get the selection in in time (<7.30pm).
Would like to see any of these: 10, 13, 32, 33. (plenty of 3x's)
with super-primaries being 37 & 35.

18 is still the lowest appearer over the last couple of years, so could appear even though it had a good recovery run of late.
If was to choose a repeater (high occurance of these lately), it would be 4 or 5 (both from last week)

Using the elastacity principle: the ever-popular 50 could well show up yet again, along with 19 & 26.

• Finally remembered to get the selection in in time (<7.30pm).
Would like to see any of these: 10, 13, 32, 33. (plenty of 3x's)
with super-primaries being 37 & 35.

18 is still the lowest appearer over the last couple of years, so could appear even though it had a good recovery run of late.
If was to choose a repeater (high occurance of these lately), it would be 4 or 5 (both from last week)

Using the elastacity principle: the ever-popular 50 could well show up yet again, along with 19 & 26.

Couple of hot balls (32 & 18 just not on the same line).

#9 was actually 5th most waited (98 days) but went with the 100+days other four. Plenty of 3x's, and just one away from a couple of others (10/37).

18 is still the lowest frequency even though it had a strong recovery run. Think it would have shared it with 32, had it not came out last night.

35 & 37 are still super-primaries fro Friday. If picking one ball only it's 35 (but may take 2/3 draws to see it).

• Again only 50/33% completion from a few lines there on Friday.

Tonight and over the next week or two will also focus on a possible couple of doubles,
- based purely on Fibonacci retracement for low/hi peaks and golden radial arcs.
32 is the current 1.618 section point, but is starting to recover,
- so will tap two distinct expected elastic points while it remains so.

A few lines of the regular steady hotballs also.
Note there is a couple of expected very hot ranges for tonight
9-13 & 32-40 inc. Maybe 2/3 balls from these 14no. balls.

• €130m prize due out in about 30mins, could you be even be bothered*

Instead the 2/3/4 type hotpickers done just an hour ago, feature mainly 35 & 37 in the arrays.
*when considering odds of getting 7 balls correct

Tues hot ball 10 (t-123) has been eliminated, but may well repeat shortly.
Apex point of 32 was out also on Tues, thus would like to see lucky ball #13 on a -1.62 type arc, or 44 if the other way.
48 is due a showing, and down at the other end, 2 ball might just appear.

• Instead the 2/3/4 type hotpickers done just an hour ago, feature mainly 35 & 37 in the arrays.

That's yet another hot ball (37) scratched off tonight, pencil in the other (35) for Tue maybe.

• Cold balls yesterday. [ 6 / 15 / 20 / 30 / 38 ].
The only hottish type ball that was selected - using 'expected historical projection' method, not the more primary methods.

All angles on this lower region pointed to #6 ball, unfortunately with 4 other cold balls, the double wasn't going to happen.
35 is nearing peak absense 140days, so should be due up soon(ish).

• right lads and lassies How are we going to get something out of this. Is it possible at all to get more than one puts in by logic.

There are five numbers out of 50 so is it logical to assume that statistically they should be random enough to come from each decade e.g.

2
19
23
31
47

i'm not predicting anything so don't play these.

I know they are all random but is it a possibility that there's a slight advantage to this thinking?:rolleyes:

• right lads and lassies How are we going to get something out of this. Is it possible at all to get more than one puts in by logic.

There are five numbers out of 50 so is it logical to assume that statistically they should be random enough to come from each decade e.g.

2 / 19 / 23 / 31 / 47

i'm not predicting anything so don't play these.

I know they are all random but is it a possibility that there's a slight advantage to this thinking?

Ah but in you attempt to appear 'random' or to have 'random selections', you've utilised or applied one of the most basic of 'methodologies' i.e. spreading or indeed selections from each decade . Thus not random!

You've also (either deliberately or otherwise) have selected ALL fairly medium-hot balls, possibly inspired by the forecast charts me thinks...?

Why not just choose e.g. 1,2,3,4,5 each and every week as challenge (virtual or otherwise), or do you not 'like' those balls? Would 1-5inc not be a 'good selection' Even better, I can offer you x5 specific cold balls to use!

Although my system isn't ideally suited for a 5ball challenge as such for various reasons including the use of dynamic array sets and hotpick 1/2/3/4/5.

• There are five numbers out of 50 so is it logical to assume that statistically they should be random enough to come from each decade

no, that is not logical at all.

• RayCun wrote: »
no, that is not logical at all.

Agree, in applying any type of methodology it's not true (random)

We can agree (techinically) every ball has the same chance to come out.
Again I'm simply applying theory against this defacto position for my selections.

Not sure if the poster was also attemping to also use a 'method' for selecting.
/Or if was trying to prove perhaps slightly sarcastically their 'random' (but not actually random) selections might be better than mine.

Anyway folks, again don't take it too seriously again it's a 'experiment' of sorts only.

But worth considering opions of Quantum physicists i.e. At the quantum level, reality does not exist, if you are not looking at it.” Is there a 'point particle'. What's the story with superposition and multi-verse theory?
Why do inteligent patterns exist in this Universe, when chaos and randomness should reign supreme. What is consciousness?

And on that cheerful note, would like to see ball 35 out tonight!

• Anyway folks, again don't take it too seriously again it's a 'experiment' of sorts only.

But worth considering opions of Quantum physicists

invoking quantum doesn't make it scientific, nor is this an experiment.

Want an experiment?

Use your model to predict the numbers drawn in the next 20 drawings.
Calculate how many numbers you are likely to get through random chance.
Calculate how many numbers you would have to get for the difference to be statistically significant.
Sit back and wait for the data.

you won't do this, of course, because this isn't science

• RayCun wrote: »
invoking quantum doesn't make it scientific, nor is this an experiment.

Want an experiment?

Use your model to predict the numbers drawn in the next 20 drawings.
Calculate how many numbers you are likely to get through random chance.
Calculate how many numbers you would have to get for the difference to be statistically significant.
Sit back and wait for the data.

you won't do this, of course, because this isn't science

Can't do this, as number selection are entirely dynamic varying on previous results, so can only attempt forecasts at the next draw, or two at most, using specific experimental 'theoretical' methods.

Theoretical quantum theory in all it's many branches isn't 'hard-science physics' it's 'theoretical physics'.

A growing number of these specific folks are also now suggesting we may live in 'virtual reality' of sorts, even sometimes implying a superintelligence is orchestrating what we percieve as existance itself.

But of course this can't be proven or disproven easily. But by all means do feel free to write any objection on this concept, in a strongly worded letter to each and every one of these people. And do ask the jokers at CERN to stop messing about also.

By the way, what is consciousness?

• Can't do this, as number selection are entirely dynamic varying on previous results,

:pac::pac::pac::pac:

So there have been thousands of drawings so far, all providing data for your model, but one drawing will throw it out completely?

:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

Okay then, predict the next drawing.
Don't alter the model afterwards, just feed the latest draw in, and make the next prediction.

Repeat for 20 draws.
Calculate how many numbers you are likely to get through random chance.
Calculate how many numbers you would have to get for the difference to be statistically significant.
Post on here with your results.
Theoretical quantum theory in all it's many branches isn't 'hard-science physics' it's 'theoretical physics'.

and you know this because you are a theoretical physicist? You've made a lifelong study of quantum phenomena, publishing multiple papers on the subject?
A growing number of these specific folks are also now suggesting we may live in 'virtual reality' of sorts, even sometimes implying a superintelligence is orchestrating what we percieve as existance itself.

But of course this can't be proven or disproven easily. But by all means do feel free to write any objection on this concept, in a strongly worded letter to each and every one of these people. And do ask the jokers at CERN to stop messing about also.

FFS, you are self-refuting. The people at CERN are doing 'hard-science physics' as you call it. They didn't build a supercollider so they could sit in their armchairs and theorise about it.
By the way, what is consciousness?

oh dear lord

• RayCun wrote: »
So there have been thousands of drawings so far, all providing data for your model, but one drawing will throw it out completely?

Thousands? queue: 'wild exaggeration'.
Correct, each forecast in this experiment is largely dependant upon the previous.
RayCun wrote: »
Okay then, predict the next drawing.
Don't alter the model afterwards, just feed the latest draw in, and make the next prediction.

Have done, but not all are published here, only give a slight insight every so often. There isn't a 'perfect' prediction neither, nor any sort of guarantee. Again it's purely an experiment. Have 'no interest whatsoever' in keeping the same forecast for 20 in a row.
RayCun wrote: »
and you know this because you are a theoretical physicist? You've made a lifelong study of quantum phenomena, publishing multiple papers on the subject?

Importantly, have you? If not, tally ho.
RayCun wrote: »
The people at CERN are doing 'hard-science physics' as you call it. They didn't build a supercollider so they could sit in their armchairs and theorise about it.

The only built it to 'seek to prove' an 'unproven theory'.
The only built it AFTER sitting in their armchairs and theorising about it.
Has it answered all thier questions and theories yet? Nope.
Is there a money back g'tee with it? Nope.
What would a typical Bank Manager say if you asked for a loan to 'seek the existance of the god particle'?.
RayCun wrote: »
oh dear lord

And you simply don't have the answer to this most common of question that has existed since the dawn of mankind .

So do come back, when you have an aswer to the quesiton: what is consciousness? (this should be an easy one for you).

And is there really a 'dear lord' as you phrased, i.e. a 'god figure'? Prove briefly that there is/isn't ...

• this experiment is focused on the EU's 'steady' data set of x50 main balls from conception back in 2004 (14yrs).
Thousands? queue: 'wild exaggeration'.

700 then. But the latest is wildly important. :rolleyes:
Have done, but not all are published here, only give a slight insight every so often. There isn't a 'perfect' prediction neither, nor any sort of guarantee. Again it's purely an experiment. Have 'no interest whatsoever' in keeping the same forecast for 20 in a row.

So this is the kind of experiment where you don't make testable predictions, and only report things that support you.

I'm not suggesting you make the same forecast 20 times in a row. I'm saying if this was an experiment you would

1. Work out how often a random selection of numbers would contain matches in a defined period.
2. Work out how large or small a difference would have to be to be statistically significant.
3. Make your prediction each week.
4. Compare each prediction to the results.
5. Record the matches.
6. Compare the number of matches you got to the number that you have worked out would be statistically significant.

This is basic stuff.
Importantly, have you? If not, tally ho.

So you agree that you have no actual expertise in quantum theory?
The only built it to 'seek to prove' an 'unproven theory'.
The only built it AFTER sitting in their armchairs and theorising about it.

Seriously? You think high energy particle physics has all been armchair theorising up until the hadron collider was built?
Has it answered all thier questions and theories yet? Nope.
Is there a money back g'tee with it? Nope.
What would a typical Bank Manager say if you asked for a loan to 'seek the existance of the god particle'?[/IMG].

that's okay, when they went in for their loan they told him they were researching ways to win the lottery.
So do come back, when you have an aswer to the quesiton: what is consciousness? (this should be an easy one for you).

And is there really a 'dear lord' as you phrased, i.e. a 'god figure'? Prove briefly that there is/isn't .

Right, because if I can't provide a definition of consciousness and a refutation of the existence of god that satisfies you, it means lottery balls are drawn in a pattern determined by the fibonacci sequence. That connection makes perfect sense.

• RayCun wrote: »
700 then.

Nope, this casual experiement has only began Jan 2018 (see 1st post), and don't always remember or have time to calculate a chart or submit entries on time, maybe only average 85% of availble draws, so at very most 61 charts. Sometimes one one, two or three entries are made, the per draw max is 5 picks.
RayCun wrote: »
So this is the kind of experiment where you don't make testable predictions, and only report things that support you.

Often make indication of predictions, for some or all of the primary numbers, and upload screengrabs afterwards where time and relevance allows.
RayCun wrote: »
I'm not suggesting you make the same forecast 20 times in a row. I'm saying if this was an experiment you would 1. Work out how often a random selection of numbers would contain matches in a defined period. 2. Work out h...

I set my own methodologies, these constantly evolve and are dynamic. What you describe is your own methodology of frequency assesment.

As mentioned on another euromillion thread, I also have better odds (by far) that 80-100m people in Europe for a 7-figure payout target.

That's a head start on <100m people in Europe, in each and every draw for 1m prize, simply by using the 5ball hotpick method. If that isn't already a massive advantage on this typical target, over millions of others, then what is?

How exactly you pick them is your own freedom of choice. Don't like some suggesitons, farewell.
RayCun wrote: »
So you agree that you have no actual expertise in quantum theory?

And so you also agree that you also have no actual expertise or knowledge whatsoever in quantum theory? Cool.
RayCun wrote: »
Seriously? You think high energy particle physics has all been armchair theorising up until the hadron collider was built?

Seriously? You think the CERN was 'not' built upon 'theory' or hypothetic predictions. That all results so far were as expected. That it carried no 'risk of success'.

The two latest baryons (never seen before) were 'predicted' by the standard quark model (but there was assurance they would be discovered or seen). Evidence of tetraquarks is still elusive with significance of over just 3 standard deviations. Will all project investors get a refund if there isn't 5 SDs, who knows!
RayCun wrote: »
That's okay, when they went in for their loan they told him they were researching ways to win the lottery.

That's exactly what any typical bank manger might have suggested to them when they asked for \$1bn per annum to smash particles and observe what happens.
RayCun wrote: »
Right, because if I can't provide a definition of consciousness and a refutation of the existence of god that satisfies you...

Correct you cannot prove nor unprove the unproven. Would also suggest you're a athiest, highly sceptical, very conformist and perhaps assume that your purpose is simply to live, work, retire, and eventually pass into empty nothingness.

Dynamic evolving theories are neither right not wrong, they just 'are', much like life itself :pac:

• Nope, this casual experiement has only began Jan 2018 (see 1st post), and don't always remember or have time to calculate a chart or submit entries on time, maybe only average 85% of availble draws, so at very most 61 charts. Sometimes one one, two or three entries are made, the per draw max is 5 picks.

But there have been 700 draws. Your theory is that you can use the results of past draws to predict future draws, so 700 draws to use.

Unless the only draws that matter are the ones you observed, because quantum.

Often make indication of predictions, for some or all of the primary numbers, and upload screengrabs afterwards where time and relevance allows.

So, as I said, don't make consistent testable predictions, but post stuff afterwards.
I set my own methodologies, these constantly evolve and are dynamic. What you describe is your own methodology of frequency assesment.

You don't understand.

I am not talking about your methodology for making predictions, which I'm sure is very dynamic and even quantum.

I'm talking about basic experimental protocol. How to measure if your predictions are useful.

Anyone can pick a random set of numbers every week, and some of them will come up, sometimes. How do you know if your method is more or less successful than pure chance?

My guess is you don't know enough about statistics to work it out. You are welcome to prove me wrong.
That's a head start on <100m people in Europe, in each and every draw for 1m prize, simply by using the 5ball hotpick method. If that isn't already a massive advantage on this typical target, over millions of others, then what is?

The fact that some lotteries have better odds than others is not a secret, or controversial.

You claim that past draws influence future draws, a classic example of the gambler's fallacy
And so you also agree that you also have no actual expertise or knowledge whatsoever in quantum theory? Cool.

I know enough to see you don't know what you are talking about

Seriously? You think the CERN was 'not' built upon 'theory' or hypothetic predictions. That all results so far were as expected. That it carried no 'risk of success'.

The large hadron collider is just the latest and greatest of a long series of experimental setups.
The two latest baryons (never seen before) were 'predicted' by the standard quark model (but there was assurance they would be discovered or seen). Evidence of tetraquarks is still elusive with significance of over just 3 standard deviations.

Yeah, congratulations on being able to google a news story.
Will all project investors get a refund if there isn't 5 SDs, who knows!

You don't know how the project was funded, do you? Go google some more.

Correct you cannot prove nor unprove the unproven. Would also suggest you're a athiest, highly sceptical, very conformist and perhaps assume that your purpose is simply to live, work, retire, and eventually pass into empty nothingness.

Dynamic evolving theories are neither right not wrong, they just 'are', much like life itself :pac:

Ah, but you see, this is the beauty of science.
We don't have to wave our hands and say all these things are fundamentally unknowable. Because you are making an assertion that can be tested through experiment!

You say there is a pattern to the numbers drawn. That each draw is not an independent event, but the numbers drawn in the past influence the numbers that will be drawn in the future. This hypothesis can be tested, and shown to be right or wrong. How exciting!

So, since you keep describing this as an experiment, do it properly!