1,7,11,24,26,30,34,35,49.

Stupid question but is there a formal definition of 'decade' in the
context of lotteries? Is it 1-9 or 1-10 for example? My numbers above
are the dregs where two different underpergorming 'decade' systems disagree.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

nigel wrote:

1,7,11,24,26,30**,34,35,49.

1 from 9. Just another random number generator :-(

Numbers for Friday: 1,26,30,40,41,42,46

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Marmaduke Jinks wrote:

On 12/03/2024 16:13, nigel wrote:

1,7,11,24,26,30,34,35,49.

Stupid question but is there a formal definition of 'decade' in the
context of lotteries? Is it 1-9 or 1-10 for example? My numbers above
are the dregs where two different underpergorming 'decade' systems
disagree.

I always presumed it to be dependent on the first "tens" number. so 1
would be in the 0 decade. 11 in the 1 decade etc etc.

So 10 would be in the 1 decade?

I've not followed the decades but the "units" number I have followed. My spreadsheet says 64% of the time there are two numbers (at least) with
the same family end digit like 11 or 21.

But that's not really high enough for the Euro. No main pair of no's
(66%), one number wholly divisible by 5 (69%) or wholly divisible by 3
(86%!) score better.

MJ
Now underpergorming - I'm thinking that's a Cate Middleton type of word ;-)

Indeed!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Marmaduke Jinks wrote:

On 13/03/2024 13:18, nigel wrote:

So 10 would be in the 1 decade?

That's what I am thinking. But I'm not a huge fan of decades.

MJ

It just seems a little odd compared to chronological decades. For
example, the 2000's started in 2001 etc.

I'm also wondering about the wisdom of using anthropocentric measurement criteria. Perhaps using the approximate square root of the number of
balls might be better, so 6/49 would use 7 and 6/59 would use 8. But
then, should the number of balls drawn also count?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Marmaduke Jinks wrote:

On 14/03/2024 22:36, Marmaduke Jinks wrote:

On 14/03/2024 12:50, nigel wrote:

I'm also wondering about the wisdom of using anthropocentric
measurement criteria. Perhaps using the approximate square root of
the number of balls might be better, so 6/49 would use 7 and 6/59
would use 8. But then, should the number of balls drawn also count?

Do you know we talk about that all the time down the pub ;-)

There's still a pub open where you live?????

Does someone like Gail Howard have a definition?

No eye deer

MJ

as an afterthought are you interested in Decades from the point of view of:

a) this decade is "hot" and the next number could come from there; or
b) this decade is "cold" and so the next number is bound to come from here?

It's not that simple but a) is closer. There is a concept of a decade
being due a certain number of hits but there are all sorts of weird
constraints involved, almost certainly a product of my fervid imaginings.

MJ

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Marmaduke Jinks wrote:

I see Ion Saliu, late of this parish, has a small monograph on it

https://saliu.com/decades.html

MJ

Thank you. His first decade runs from 0-9. I haven't encountered too
many lotteries with a ball 0.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Marmaduke Jinks wrote:

On 16/03/2024 13:51, nigel wrote:

Marmaduke Jinks wrote:

I see Ion Saliu, late of this parish, has a small monograph on it

https://saliu.com/decades.html

MJ

Thank you. His first decade runs from 0-9. I haven't encountered too
many lotteries with a ball 0.

;-)

In view of the subject, Ion Saliu would need six decades to analyse Euromillions.

1st - 0-9
2nd - 10-19
3rd - 20-29
4th - 30-39
5th - 40-49
6th - 50

That's a strong argument for multiples of 10 being agglomerated into the
decade below IMO.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)