Wheeling

Talk about anything related to lotteries... This is your place to chat!
CLTB
Regular
Regular
Posts: 37
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 4:04 pm

Wheeling

Post by CLTB » Wed Sep 26, 2012 7:58 pm

Hi LA

Is there a way of wheeling a bunch of numbers (for ease of reference lets say 20 numbers 1 - 20) whereby all the numbers generated are all included however from the "front" numbers chosen. I am trying to avoid let say the last 8 or 10 numbers being generated as blocks such as 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18 - or - 11, 13, 16, 18, 19, 20 etc.

Hope I have made sense here.

Regards - Frank

Sooz
Proficient
Proficient
Posts: 246
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2011 12:24 am
Location: Canada

Re: Wheeling

Post by Sooz » Wed Sep 26, 2012 8:35 pm

Hi Frank,
Are you asking if there's a way to make sure that the 6 numbers in your 6-number selections are not all concentrated on higher numbers?
If that's your question, then absolutely yes, WG has this feature.
Just click on the Engines tab, then the Position tab. In that panel you can specify a range for each of your six numbers on any one ticket. For example, you might want your first number on a ticket to always be between 1 and 10, your second number to be between 5 and 15, your 6th number to be between 15 to 20 and so on. You can make a selection for all 6 positions or fewer.
You can use the Guide to tell WG how important is this rule. The default for the guide is 50%.
There are so many features to WG, most of us probably don't use them all, but it's worth taking the time to experiment and learn.
.....Sooz

CLTB
Regular
Regular
Posts: 37
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 4:04 pm

Re: Wheeling

Post by CLTB » Wed Sep 26, 2012 9:41 pm

Hi Sooz

Thanks for the quick response. You are correct - I don't wan't a concentration of the last numbers in my chosen selection. I was hoping for something simpler than what you have suggested which if I understand it correctly is in a sense grouping of combinations leaving out the tailenders as combinations. I was hoping for something on the lines of a "cut-off number" that when inserted WG would understand that any higher combinations above that number must not be generated and only concentrate on the lower combinations which must of course include the higher numbers. By doing this you would be able to generate more combinations of lower to higher number combinations which in my opinion gives a better chance of winning tickets.

I think experience shows that it is highly unlikely that the last concentration of numbers will be winning numbers especially if you have quite a few of the higher numbers selected. The same would apply to the lower numbers. It is again highly unlikely that numbers such as 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 will be a winning combination? I will put your suggestion to the test though and see if it gives me what I want.

Regards - Frank

Sooz
Proficient
Proficient
Posts: 246
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2011 12:24 am
Location: Canada

Re: Wheeling

Post by Sooz » Wed Sep 26, 2012 11:12 pm

Hi Frank
Could you please explain a bit further what you mean "and only concentrate on the lower combinations which must of course include the higher numbers." Maybe you want to make sure that the 6 numbers on your ticket aren't too close together? There's another filter on the tab "distance" for that. Personally I don't use it because the position filter already sort of fulfills the purpose of having the 6 selected numbers not too clumped together. Anyhow good luck trying things out, and let me know. :)
.....Sooz

CLTB
Regular
Regular
Posts: 37
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 4:04 pm

Re: Wheeling

Post by CLTB » Thu Sep 27, 2012 6:17 am

Hi Sooz

I have copied the last 12 combinations that I wheeled in a game I tested and in my opinion it is highly unlikely that there will be 5 to 6 winning numbers in this mix. At best you might get 2-4 winning numbers.
I usually take these out but unfortunately can't replace them lets say out of 100 numbers. If I play them I am throwing money away. The only other possibility would be to play lets say 120 blocks and remove the last 20.

19 26 31 36 43 45
19 32 41 43 44 47
21 23 36 39 44 45
21 26 29 35 41 43
22 23 26 30 35 44
22 24 30 31 41 42
22 38 42 44 45 48
23 29 31 36 47 48
24 29 43 47 48 49
26 31 36 41 44 49
30 32 36 39 42 43
30 35 44 45 47 48

In the last lotto game played here the winning numbers were 1, 4, 5, 13, 18, 43 so you can see taking any 6 number combination from 18 onwards would have been a complete waste (I had an additional 6 numbers above 18). Very seldom (and I mean very selodom) do we get 6 winning numbers in a mix such as the one above.
Regards - Frank

Skirrow
Advanced
Advanced
Posts: 51
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 8:23 pm
Location: UK

Re: Wheeling

Post by Skirrow » Thu Sep 27, 2012 7:43 am

Hi Frank,
How about using the "Groups Filter", I use it as follows...

select numbers 1 -16 , allow 0 - 3 of these
select numbers 17 -33 , allow 0 - 3 of these
select numbers 34 -49 , allow 0 - 3 of these

Or try your own preferences, this will limit the amount of each group in your blocks...

Regards

CLTB
Regular
Regular
Posts: 37
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 4:04 pm

Re: Wheeling

Post by CLTB » Thu Sep 27, 2012 8:12 am

Thanks Skirrow

I will try your suggestion and the suggestion by Sooz. Hopefully I eventually find a happy medium.
Regards - Frank

User avatar
lottoarchitect
Site Admin
Posts: 1463
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 5:03 pm
Location: Greece
Contact:

Re: Wheeling

Post by lottoarchitect » Thu Sep 27, 2012 1:40 pm

Hi CLTB, what you ask here is an application of what we call a front-covered (or front-loaded) wheel. This type of wheel gives preference to the numbers you enter from highest to lowest, so if your order of preference is e.g. numbers 1 2 3 4 ... 20, this type of wheel will ensure optimal coverage of the initial numbers and it will use the remaining numbers as needed to complete the full cover. When targeting an 100% cover, you cannot avoid blocks consisting only of the last few numbers in your preference order however. Also, this type of construction has a embedded limiting factor which is, you'll not produce the most optimal cover in terms of coverage vs needed blocks because it will use blocks that are not always optimal to fill the missing coverage gaps; it has to ensure first optimal cover of the range 1-6, then 1-7, then 1-8 etc. In WG you can approach this construction via the Skirrow's number groups suggestion by enabling the normal mode (no guide) and assign increased percentages and different ranges e.g.
select numbers 1-16 , allow 0 - 4 of these, 40% <- your most preferred numbers here
select numbers 17-33 , allow 0 - 3 of these 50%
select numbers 34-49 , allow 0 - 2 of these 60% <- your least preferred numbers here

The ranges and the amount of number groups is up to you really. So if you play only with 18 numbers you could do this (replace 1-18 with your preferred order)
select numbers 1-6 , allow 0 - 4 of these, 40% <- your most preferred numbers here
select numbers 7-12 , allow 0 - 3 of these 50%
select numbers 13-18 , allow 0 - 2 of these 60% <- your least preferred numbers here

That way you force your last part to contain as few as possible numbers in the range 34-49. Since it is impossible to make an 100% cover without blocks in the range 34-49, you at least try to eliminate as much as possible of these but there will be some, otherwise 100% coverage cannot be achieved. By 34-49 here we mean your own selection of numbers that falls in positions 34-49 in your preferred order (these are not your actual numbers). Do not force extreme percentages however (close to 0% or 100%), this may hinder the ability to produce an 100% in fewer blocks, although you can try this too.

I have been thinking about this in the past and I think I have a better solution to front loaded wheels which is to be included in a future WG release. The idea is simple really, when building a covering, to pick a number higher in the preference order among other candidates if this does not hinder further wheel building. So this will "marry" the good parts of both worlds hopefully in fewer blocks than a front-covered wheel.
Keep in mind, this approach really produces an unbalanced covering (uneven spread of number occurrences). I don't personally believe this is a bad thing however.

cheers
lottoarchitect

CLTB
Regular
Regular
Posts: 37
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 4:04 pm

Re: Wheeling

Post by CLTB » Thu Sep 27, 2012 2:01 pm

Thank you LA

A very concise explanation which gives me a something to work with. I am pleased to hear that you have been thinking about this (front loaded wheels) as there is a definite need for it.

In the numbers I gave previously (see below) these were for our lotto draw last night and the winning numbers last night were: 1, 6, 17, 20, 23, 29. Again you can see the numbers below would have been wasted had I played them.

19 26 31 36 43 45
19 32 41 43 44 47
21 23 36 39 44 45
21 26 29 35 41 43
22 23 26 30 35 44
22 24 30 31 41 42
22 38 42 44 45 48
23 29 31 36 47 48
24 29 43 47 48 49
26 31 36 41 44 49
30 32 36 39 42 43
30 35 44 45 47 48

Thanks again for the suggestions. I look forward to the next WG with a possible front loaded option.

Regards
Frank

User avatar
lottoarchitect
Site Admin
Posts: 1463
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 5:03 pm
Location: Greece
Contact:

Re: Wheeling

Post by lottoarchitect » Thu Sep 27, 2012 2:17 pm

Just a correction to the above, don't limit the 1st group to 0-4 numbers, it should be 0-k of your covering. Then each subsequent group should be 0 to k-1, then 0 to k-2 etc. The is no reason to force the preferred group to accept only up to 4 numbers. In fact the initial preferred group can be omitted entirely.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest