Coverage improved organization and some portfolio-level outcomes—not the underlying draw probability.
Less overlap puts more different numbers and pairs across a fixed-size portfolio.
The best line can improve modestly even when total expected matches stay level.
The same number of distinct valid lines owns the same number of exact jackpot combinations.
Read the result, then inspect the method.
Each game has a different test design. We label those differences instead of blending unlike studies into one score.
Coverage versus random
Four coverage-first primaries were compared with four distinct random primaries across every historical Lotto Max number range.
- 1,258 official draws
- 125,800 trials per strategy
- Four primaries per portfolio
Portfolio-size study
Coverage portfolios from 9 to 25 lines were tested against 500 draws to measure match distribution, cost and diminishing returns.
- 500 official draws
- 1,500 samples per line count
- Six tested portfolio sizes
Four questions before any conclusion.
- 1
What was compared?Coverage, random and different line counts answer different questions.
- 2
How large was the independent archive?Repeated simulations reduce simulation noise; they do not create more official draw history.
- 3
Which outcome moved?Unique coverage, best-line matches, total matches and jackpot probability are not interchangeable.
- 4
What was excluded?Unmodelled prize tiers, format changes and small samples stay visible in every report.
Run the same disciplined comparison on your own locked portfolios.
The private Evidence Lab scores completed draws against equal-size locked random portfolios. Public reports never expose your lines.