Harlan wrote in message ...


....[illiterate post snipped]

Calm down, take it easy. Take a deep breath, before you start ranting
at the keyboard. If English is not your first language Mr. Grove, then
have someone check your posts for you. The uninformed may abandon your
posts, mistaking the writer for an utter illiterate moron, and
unfortunately missing the content's obvious value.

In addition pertinent details are lost in your long-winded unnecessary
discourses. You seem to have plenty of time on your hands so i'd
advise a lesson or two should be learnt from other more respected
contributors. You could do no worse than start with Tom Ogilvy's posts
precise, logical and succinct arguments.

Here's a novel idea, with your next paycheck from Gates, go buy
yourself a dictionary.

I've passed your post through spell checker for the benefit of users
with more delicate sensibilities than myself and I am reposting it
below.

Samuel

The remainder of your argument (which I recognize was tongue in cheek) relied
upon the OP either accepting that all outcomes should occur as frequently as any
others based on the flawed assumption that there's some sort of self-correcting
mechanism to do so or you're interpreting the OP's intent opposite to how I've
done.

It's bad enough to find the most frequent historical 4-ball combination and
assume that means it's more likely to recur, then augment it with all other
2-ball combinations to pick 'winning' numbers - given 49 balls, (45 choose 2) =
990 6-ball combinations. If the most frequent 4-ball combination is considered
*unlikely* to recur, there'd be (46 choose 6) - (45 choose 2) = 13,982,826
possible 6-ball combinations that have no more than 3 out of 4 of the numbers
from the historically most frequent 4-ball combination.

If you had meant to dissuade the OP from proceeding with this exercise, I
believe you should have been more explicit.

Unless you have some new revelation on the basic concepts of probability
related to lottery numbers that I don't understand, and I doubt it, don't
see much reason to waste further disk space on this.

Provided above. Guess this allows me to repost, huh?

In case it hasn't become obvious to you, I have no qualms about wasting bandwidth
on pointless replies. Thanks for the invitation.