In indicator analysis, "skew" means that the midpoint of the indicator will not be symmetrical in the statistical table of the indicator for a long time. The large number, medium number or decimal number of classification number 1 are independent indicators. You can see symmetry in the 3D level or level 3 statistics table. For example, sometimes the decimal number of classification number 1 appears in the statistics table. The state is very conventional: omission, omission-omission, omission. If this happens, it will be judged that they will be the omission in the next omission interval, wrong omission,
symmetrical omission, omission, omission-omission, omission-omission and omission. Is there a theoretical basis for this analysis? The answer is no. In fact, this judgment is just a coincidence. According to historical statistics, the frequency of "asymmetry" is much higher than that of "symmetry". For example, it can be seen from the statistical information of the sorting statistics table that if a large number of indexes of an ordered number are lost for one cycle, the large number will be discarded correctly, then after two cycles are lost, the large number is correct and disappears, and then after three consecutive cycles, the large number is lost. The account is still correct. Therefore, if four consecutive cycles are skipped, can a large number of numbers be displayed correctly? Missing Phase 1: Missing-Right Out; Missing 2 issues: missing-missing-correct; Missing 3 periods: missing-missing-missing-correct; Missing 4 periods: missing-missing-missing-missing-missing-correct? We think it is difficult to quit correctly after missing 4 cycles. Why? Because cycle 1 is omitted at this time, cycle 2 and cycle 3 are symmetrically increasing phenomena. According to the "asymmetry" principle of indicators, four points are omitted, and the possibility of just exiting in the middle is very small. Similarly, if the state of each correction is exactly the same, it is a symmetrical offset phenomenon, and it can be completely eliminated. For example, correct, correct, correct, correct, correct, correct, correct, correct, correct, correct, correct, correct, correct, for three consecutive times, and then it is unlikely to be corrected three times after omission. Therefore, although symmetry may develop in the actual lottery, this state is less than the possibility of asymmetry. We can't pursue symmetry in all expectations just because indicators develop symmetrically at a certain stage. Generally speaking, the probability of regular patterns is much lower than that of irregular patterns. Uneven distribution of lottery winning numbers is the biggest rule! Therefore, once there are more than three symmetrical developments, this situation must be resolutely ruled out for the fourth time.