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.

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.

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 ;-)

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

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!

On 13/03/2024 13:18, nigel wrote:
> 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!
>
> So 10 would be in the 1 decade?
That's what I am thinking. But I'm not a huge fan of decades.

MJ

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?

On 14/03/2024 12:50, nigel wrote:
> 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?
>
Do you know we talk about that all the time down the pub ;-)

Does someone like Gail Howard have a definition?

MJ

On 14/03/2024 22:36, Marmaduke Jinks wrote:
> On 14/03/2024 12:50, nigel wrote:
>> 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?
>>
> Do you know we talk about that all the time down the pub ;-)
>
> Does someone like Gail Howard have a definition?
>
> 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?

MJ

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

On 15/03/2024 16:05, nigel wrote:
> 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?????

where else would I go for a game of cribbage?

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

https://saliu.com/decades.html

MJ

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.

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.
>
;-)

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.

On 17/03/2024 17:49, nigel wrote:
> 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.
>
unless you notionally attach the "50" to 0 - 9. It's a zero last digit
and we know that 0 on its own does not exist.

MJ

On 18/03/2024 8:28 am, Marmaduke Jinks wrote:
> On 17/03/2024 17:49, nigel wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> unless you notionally attach the "50" to 0 - 9.  It's a zero last digit
> and we know that 0 on its own does not exist.
>
> MJ
>
>
>
>

For euromillions only...

1..10
11..20
21..30
31..40
41..50

why complicate it

On 25/03/2024 13:41, NN wrote:
> On 18/03/2024 8:28 am, Marmaduke Jinks wrote:
>> On 17/03/2024 17:49, nigel wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>> unless you notionally attach the "50" to 0 - 9.  It's a zero last
>> digit and we know that 0 on its own does not exist.
>>
>> MJ
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> For euromillions only...
>
>  1..10
> 11..20
> 21..30
> 31..40
> 41..50
>
> why complicate it
>
>
>
I'm sure you said this to me a few years ago.

Luckily I'm not a follower of "decades".

MJ