Solid Software

[Return to Product LottoCheck INFORM V2 Home Page]

 Unmasking Some Lotto Myths...

Misunderstandings, myth, heavy exaggeration, double-speak, severe distortion of the facts and worse! That's how you would characterise some of the extraordinary false views and claims about lotto beating systems that we've heard and read during  the years since we first started publishing LottoCheck in 1986. The following sections factually examines four of them, since the only effective way to counter misinformation, is to counter it with genuine information...

1. Big Systems Better Value Myth

Many people think that because 20 numbers is almost half of 45 numbers, that a System 20 covers almost half of the possible combinations of six numbers. This is a common misunderstanding stemming from the exponential nature of numbers, which helps inflate the lotto pool. A System 20, which costs $11,802.00 (on Saturdays 6-From-45 draw), covers a mere 38,760 games of six numbers from the possible 8,145,060 different combinations of six numbers you can draw from 45 numbers. ie. A System 20 covers less than half of one percent of all the unique combinations!

2. Redundant Numbers Myth

Some people claim that once a set of six numbers come up, they won't appear again for thousands of years so you should not choose them! That's preposterous. Lotto number draws are not cyclic events like comets, instead they approach random behaviour. Such a claim of number redundancy is like claiming that: if the first toss of a coin is heads, then the second toss must yield tails, as heads is redundant! It just defies common-sense, never mind the laws of probability which govern random numbers. You only have to look back at our example in the section 'Use of Past Winning Numbers', of the same six numbers winning twice in less than one year for a counter example. ie. The same six numbers won NSW Lotto in both Draw Number 916 (29/01/91) and Draw Number 817 (19/02/90).

The fact in the matter is, that for each and every draw, every combination of six numbers have a chance very close to equal, of being picked the winners, even the six that just won the previous week. Don't confuse the past with the future when you approach probability and statistics. For example, lets calculate the probability of the same particular 6 numbers coming up winners in the next two draws in the future: The chance is 1 in 8,145,060 x (times) 1 in 8,145,060, which is the very remote odds of 1 in 66,342,000,000,000! Yet after those six number had actually come out as the winners in the first draw, the chances of them then coming up in the second draw, drop back to a mere 1 in 8,145,060 again. Always remember the important distinction between past and future when calculating probabilities and selecting your numbers.

3. Reduced Cost Systems Myth

'Cheaper Wheeler Systems' claiming to cover more numbers for far less dollars than the lotto agencies charge -  is a claim put out by a lotto program vendor many years ago, which kicked off a practise widely emulated since. Unfortunately the concept and the sentiment behind selling it, has circumnavigated the globe and crept into several lotto programs, both commercially available and freeware programs. Put simply: It can't be done.

The way they promoted these systems was very misleading. For example, they could claim to cover say, a System 12, which really costs $284.20 per Saturday, for a mere $3 to $4 dollars.

But in such a substandard system, consider the scenario where 6 of your 12 chosen numbers do come up in a draw as the winning 6. You may only have 4 of them on the coupons that the substandard system instructed you to purchase at the newsagents!

What such programs guarantee with their substandard systems, is that if the 6 winning numbers are amongst the 12 you put into the substandard system (a remote 1 in 8,815 possibility) , then you will win 'a prize', not 'the 1st Division Prize'. ie. You may have only won a 4th Division paying perhaps $20, when a genuine lotto agency System 12 guarantees that in the above scenario (where you have the 6 winning numbers amongst your 12 chosen ones), you would have won a 1st Division - paying perhaps $1,000,000! By using such a substandard system in the above scenario, and chancing upon a 4th Division prize, you could however claim: 'I would have won lotto if I had taken out a genuine System 12 instead! ', which is only of any use if you're into telling hard-done-by tales of woe.

The moral to the story with regard to lotto Systems is: you get the coverage that you pay for. The fact of the matter is: You cannot cover the number of combinations covered by real System Entries, for less money than what the lotto agencies charge for them. If anyone is telling you otherwise, then you should treat their other advice accordingly.

LottoCheck INFORM doesn't offer substandard systems as a feature and never will in the future. (Note: Many people want to play multiple games all containing some of their favourite numbers, but don't want to subscribe to a large and expensive System. If you want to automatically generate such multiple games, up to 20 at a time, that include your favourite numbers and/or exclude numbers you don't like, use

LottoCheck INFORMs Quick Pick feature to generate such part-random combinations. It's a customised random Quick Pick which doesn't masquerade as anything more than what it really is.)


4. Proven High Paying Systems Myth.

Finding past combinations that have paid above average dividends is a legitimate way to begin a search for minute abnormal variations in the past draws, if they exist. Statisticians call it taking test 'samples' and regularly do so in all forms of industry to see if machinery needs updating or improving. And as mentioned earlier in the Strategies Chapter, the Lotto Agency itself has felt the need to change the lotto drawing machinery in the past. The trouble is, the natural large variations within the lotto game are mixed in with any small abnormal fluctuations there might be. So never accept past performance of balls as proof that they have a better chance in future. Consider it only as: a broad guideline for non-random selection; a subjective theory; a hunch; or natural variation from the norm - but never as proof of future success.

Consider the following scenario: you step back one year in the data; then take 4 years of lotto results prior to that; find some high paying Systems over the earlier 4 year period; and then test them on just the last year of data, wherein some of them still paid above average dividends. We have heard claims that such a procedure is proof of locating lotto systems which will return higher than normal dividends! That is not proof, as it is still all based on past data only. It could well be within naturally expected variations, which means the winning streak for a majority of those systems won't continue.

To understand any such claims of Proven High Paying Systems, for what they really are, it is useful to consider an extreme point of the argument: The extreme example of making a false claim on such variation, would be to pick the 6 numbers which won last Saturdays draw which, say, won $600,000.00 for the cost of 30 cents for the single Game, then claim: 'it's a System which returns 20,000% on your investment'!

If you extend the past number of draws in the above example to include several years worth, instead of just last weeks, and exclude 1st Division prizes from the monies won, then the percentage return claim on dollars spent, will drop to a more believable figure, but it is no more genuine than the 20,000% claim. ie. It is still not proof that the numbers will go on winning above average in the future. They have just a remote possibility of winning which they share with the other like sized combinations of numbers.

Note: This page is an edited extract from the User Manual from our 'LottoCheck INFORM V2 for Windows' software package.

For some genuine strategies for increasing your returns on lotto tickets: <Click Here>.


Solid Software Pty Ltd

ABN: 60 084 786 498
Postal Address: P.O. Box 218, Belgrave, Victoria 3160, Australia
Phone/VoiceMail: +61 0407 544 260
Email: gosh 'At'

This page last updated: 25th July 2006.

Guidance | Services | Products | Tools | Activity | Information | People | Home

This page is Copyright: Solid Software P/L Australia, 1999-2006. All rights reserved.