Development - G.A.T. Engine 2.3

Any latest news will be posted here...
baalhabait
Advanced
Advanced
Posts: 80
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 9:58 pm

Re: Development - G.A.T. Engine 2.3

Post by baalhabait » Tue Mar 19, 2013 12:17 pm

Look, i've long ago understood the great drawback in attempting to win the lottery with the bare minimum but i also familar with the great trouble with playing as many numbers as possible especially when there are no prizes except for the jackpot.
I didn't rake my brain too much with the good approaches, just because they cost too much good money and for the too bad reward offered over here.
Can you tell if any one of the good approaches consists of less than 100 blocks and still provide better chances than waiting for a 6 out 6, which is what would make it good approach anyway?
Good approches which involve million blocks or more are good only for billionairs, you know...
I've sent you an image of how i set up WG. please check it and let me know where i did wrong.

baalhabait
Advanced
Advanced
Posts: 80
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 9:58 pm

Re: Development - G.A.T. Engine 2.3

Post by baalhabait » Tue Apr 09, 2013 8:06 am

Hi anastasios,

Can you add a parameter to allow to stop the calculation process based on requested amount of gats with a certain hit ratio?

User avatar
lottoarchitect
Site Admin
Posts: 1457
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 5:03 pm
Location: Greece
Contact:

Re: Development - G.A.T. Engine 2.3

Post by lottoarchitect » Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:28 pm

No further additions will occur in 2.3. What is the point of this feature?

baalhabait
Advanced
Advanced
Posts: 80
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 9:58 pm

Re: Development - G.A.T. Engine 2.3

Post by baalhabait » Wed Apr 10, 2013 8:48 pm

The point is to only have the requested amount of GATs with certain hit ratio, for use in number groups - so the computation will not procced further unnecceraily.
Have you done any simulations to support the assumption an actual hit will occur within the amount of draws that relevent to the hit ratio?

User avatar
lottoarchitect
Site Admin
Posts: 1457
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 5:03 pm
Location: Greece
Contact:

Re: Development - G.A.T. Engine 2.3

Post by lottoarchitect » Wed Apr 10, 2013 9:03 pm

I don't like this idea, consider you hinder the ability to check more equal GATs which may provide a much better overall look for the task and chances are this will be always the case. If the very first GAT found is indeed the best all the time, I'd do that for every case; no need to check other equal GATs in first place. Since we can't somehow testify the very first GAT found in a given category is better than any other equal GAT found, I see no point in doing that.

baalhabait
Advanced
Advanced
Posts: 80
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 9:58 pm

Re: Development - G.A.T. Engine 2.3

Post by baalhabait » Wed Apr 10, 2013 9:34 pm

I'm not hinder the ability to check more equal gats, but i hinder the ability to have a headache in an attempt to determine which GAT from those equal GATs im gonna play with, while all of them have the same hit potential.
I'm also hinder the idea of changing certain numbers in certain number groups just because they contain overlaping numbers with other groups, but thats the way it is and it has nothing to do with what we hinder or dislike, dont you think?
Finally, none of us have the ability to run 100M GATs between draw to the next one, anyway - right?
Have you done any simulations to support the assumption an actual hit will occur within the amount of draws that relavant to the hit ratio?

User avatar
lottoarchitect
Site Admin
Posts: 1457
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 5:03 pm
Location: Greece
Contact:

Re: Development - G.A.T. Engine 2.3

Post by lottoarchitect » Wed Apr 10, 2013 11:02 pm

I'm not hinder the ability to check more equal gats, but i hinder the ability to have a headache in an attempt to determine which GAT from those equal GATs im gonna play with, while all of them have the same hit potential.
What about regularity of hits or a very consistent hit pattern among those equal hitting GATs which is way better in some of them? These are the things you miss and you should look for in first place on deciding which GATs to pick. Picking the first shown GATs hinders this ability to find even better ones even if they do provide the same hits. If that was the case, we'd simply stop at the moment one GAT is found that delivers the desired hit category. We don't do that because we have to examine regularity of hits and possibly other things.
I'm also hinder the idea of changing certain numbers in certain number groups just because they contain overlaping numbers with other groups, but thats the way it is and it has nothing to do with what we hinder or dislike, dont you think?
One more reason to allow more scanned GATs so to find those that deliver better regularity of hits and also do not contain overlapping numbers if possible. I see this as a positive side-effect of allowing more equal GATs.
Finally, none of us have the ability to run 100M GATs between draw to the next one, anyway - right?
Not needed and nobody does anyway and it is irrelevant to what we discuss here I believe.
Have you done any simulations to support the assumption an actual hit will occur within the amount of draws that relavant to the hit ratio?
I have done enough simulations to suggest that "what you see is what you get" and the reason I provide this program anyway so to benefit from boosted odds. But the GAT graph already illustrates that. If at any point in that graph, you decide to use that GAT table it would provide the hits illustrated beyond that point. However, there is no guarantee that a given performance it will always continue the same way in the future too. Since it managed a given performance at e.g. 100 draws, a similar performance is expected to occur as well in the future 100 draws, maybe more, maybe less. However this is an "expected" performance and not a guaranteed performance. The reason it is an expected performance is due to the methodology used. Any prediction performed of those tested draws uses the same methodology for any future unknown draws too. So whatever happened during the tested draws can also be expected to happen at the future unknown draws. This methodology is the extraction of the signature, the dynamics of the draws computed for a given GAT table that provide a given performance.

baalhabait
Advanced
Advanced
Posts: 80
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 9:58 pm

Re: Development - G.A.T. Engine 2.3

Post by baalhabait » Wed Apr 10, 2013 11:43 pm

How can we get more equal GATs unless we dont let the computation run further, much much further within the time allowed between draws?
Can you explain why this irrelevant?

User avatar
lottoarchitect
Site Admin
Posts: 1457
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 5:03 pm
Location: Greece
Contact:

Re: Development - G.A.T. Engine 2.3

Post by lottoarchitect » Thu Apr 11, 2013 12:14 am

It depends on what sort of hits achievement you expect to have. If you look for 90% 5-hits this will never happen, if you are more reasonable, several GATs will appear anyway. Actually if you do get the necessary amount of GATs by inspecting e.g. 1M GATs, a few more will really show up after a while. I never had to wait that much to get a list of good GATs to inspect and decide among them so not sure why you even say 100M is needed.

baalhabait
Advanced
Advanced
Posts: 80
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 9:58 pm

Re: Development - G.A.T. Engine 2.3

Post by baalhabait » Thu Apr 11, 2013 5:39 pm

Would you like the idea a slider will appear below the graph when running the engine using run factor above 0 (or at least when the run factor is larger than the tested draws), so we will be able to slide to the left and see whats going on there even if the run factor become larger than the tested draws?
Actually the graph should display the results of both the tested draws + the run factor.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests